[boost] Re: Minor question about BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-28 11:00:32

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:58:22 -0000, "John Maddock"
<jm_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>> I've noticed that the philosophy of boost as it concerns long long is:
>> if the type exists then use it. Since it is a non standard feature
>> shouldn't it be used only if requested by the user (e.g. with a macro
>> from the command line:
>>
>>    -DBOOST_ENABLE_LONG_LONG
>
>Maybe, but you could end up with a lot of macros to define if you want all
>the extentions enabled.

Used by boost? What extensions?

>IMO the vast majority of users do want all possible
>extentions enabled.
>
>> )?. I ask this because in --pedantic mode gcc emits a lot of warnings
>> in boost headers even if the client code doesn't use long long. Now,
>> for gcc the problem is easily solved because it has
>>
>>    -Wno-long-long
>>
>> but is there a similar solution for other compilers?
>
>IMO it isn't a problem for other compilers (by and large they don't warn).

Among the compilers I know of, Intel C++ and Comeau complain too.
That's usually the case for EDG based compilers, which yield an error
in strict mode and a warning otherwise, unless you explicitly disallow
the diagnostic. Unfortunately with Intel C++ 6.0 there seems to be no
way to pass the disabling switch (--long_long) to the front-end :-(

In any case, I've just replied in the hope that these can be useful
information for someone, not to object your opinion. I see that the
common will is to leave everything as is.

Genny.