From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-12 09:13:37
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> I recently added specializations of numeric_limits<__int64> and
> numeric_limits<unsigned __int64> to boost/limits.hpp for MSVC6 support.
> However, I'm finding that more than one compiler supplies a 64 bit
> type without corresponding specializations of numeric_limits<>.
> I'd like to suggest two things:
> 1. A boost config macro we can use to detect this condition
> 2. the implementation details used to implement std::numeric_limits<> in
> boost/detail/limits.hpp should stop using names reserved to the C++
> implementation and instead be moved to namespace boost::detail in a
> separate file. Then boost/limits.hpp could generate the missing
> for the appropriate compilers.
I'm also discovering that on some edg platforms for which
boost/config/compiler/edg_common.hpp correctly #defines
BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG, there's no definition of LONGLONG_MAX et al. in
Not sure what to do about this,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk