Re: [boost] Another patch for long long in gcc -std=c++98

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-17 02:14:49

On 8/15/04 12:32 PM, "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> "Aaron W. LaFramboise" <aaronrabiddog51_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
>> This is a followup from prior threads:
>> TT_AUX_IS_CONVERTIBLE_FROM_FLOAT_CV_SPEC in
>> type_traits/is_convertable.hpp:
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/106708
>> long long support with GCC:
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/6693
>> 
>> The following patch is another attempt to get long long support working,
>> in a manner acceptable with Boost, even when -std=c++98 and -pedantic
>> are specified.  In particular, GCC supports long long in all modes, but
>> __extension__ is required to quiet errors and warnings.
>> 
>> It is possible that other C++ compilers with a similar situation
>> regarding long long might be able to use this patch constructively.
>> 
>> In short, typedefs are added for long long and unsigned long long in
>> cstdint.hpp, and all uses of these typenames in the headers are changed
>> to use these new names.
> 
> On naming, I think long_long and unsigned_long_long might be better,
> but I don't have a strong position here.

I don't understand what problem this change is going to solve.  If a
compiler has a strict C++-1998 mode, then supporting "(unsigned) long long"
anyway is sort-of a disfeature.  Maybe we should just have the headers
assume that the double-long types are absent.  (The changes don't affect
compilers that don't have the double-long types at all, right?)

> The patch is essentially OK with me, but it touches a number of other
> peoples' libraries so we maybe should hear from others, and it will
> require some labor to commit.  Should we give Aaron CVS access for
> this?

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT hotmail DOT com