Re: [boost] Re: Why no long long support in integer::int_t?

From: Stephen Nutt (snutt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-30 19:52:30

Presumably both could be available and of different sizes?  Yuck!

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Maddock" <jm_at_[hidden]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Why no long long support in integer::int_t?

> > I can change the code to use something other than int64_t, but what?
> Should
> > we add both longlong_t and ulonglong_t that are typedef'd to long long
if
> > supported, or else int64_t for MSVC?
>
> You could use BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG (for long long) and BOOST_HAS_MS_INT64
> (for __int64) to detect which types are available in addition to the
> standard integer types, note that sometimes both macros are defined, and
> *may* refer to the same underlying type, so use long long in preference to
> __int64 if offered the choice.
>
> John Maddock
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>