Boost logo

Boost :

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:
>> type_traits/is_convertable.hpp:
>> long long support with GCC:
>> 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

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