From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-11 07:21:23
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:36:56 -0000, "John Maddock"
>> Could we subordinate BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG to
>I would rather that BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG was just not defined in the first
>place when EDG is in strict mode - any ideas?
When Intel? Or when EDG? In the second case I would say no, because
EDG based compilers usually accept long long even in strict mode if
you enable it with --long_long. It's just that Intel (6.0) doesn't
seem to like it :-/
Anyhow, how do you propose to avoid the warnings issued in non-strict
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk