Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-15 12:23:12

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:00:36 -0000, "John Maddock"
<jm_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>> Can't we detect
>> whether the compiler is supporting "long long" and only enable the
>> long long code under those circumstances? In fact, /don't/ we do
>> that?
>> If this is just about inconvenient warnings, it seems to me that
>> telling people "disable long long support or disable the warning" is a
>> perfectly sensible approach.
>> What am I missing?
>I agree completely: the issue is that older EDG compilers (prior to 3.0.0)
>don't signal whether they're in strict mode or not

Well, it's unfair to offload it on the compilers though. They aren't
certainly obliged to tell you that a non standard type is not
available. But I'm getting tired of all this discussion, I'm just
replying for the equity's sake. Just to set records straight: the
problem was not compilers; it's just that one should IMHO be able to
compile, let's say, boost::is_integral in strict mode, unless she does
use is_integral<long long>. If I just use is_integral<int>, why should
I get errors?

As you know (see

) __NO_LONG_LONG is just a 3.0 addition. There's a whole world of EDG
front ends that don't have it, and there's a whole world of EDG users
who want to compile in strict mode. BTW, Dave asked "can't we detect
whether the compiler is supporting long long?". Can we?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at