Boost logo

Boost :

From: Markus Schöpflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-01 14:34:32

Jonathan Wakely wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 12:50:32PM +0200, Markus Schöpflin wrote:

>>A possible fix would be to start the test with 64 bit and not 32 on 64 bit
>>platforms. But how can 64 bit platforms be detected? Probably with #if
>>(LONG_MAX > INT_MAX) ... #endif or something like this.
> This is not _guaranteed_ to work, but would be OK in practice.
> An ILP64 platform would have sizeof(int) == sizeof(long) == 8
> and an LLP64 platform would have sizeof(int) == sizeof(long) == 4
> In both cases LONG_MAX == INT_MAX.
> I think all 64-bit unices use the LP64 model, where sizeof(int) == 4 and
> sizeof(long) == 8, so I think your suggestion would work.

Do you know of a way which would work portably?

>>Another fix (which ignores 64 bit values alltogether) would be to change
>>the lines above to not use long and LONG_MAX but int and INT_MAX.
> As I understand it that just changes the bad assumption that long is
> 32-bits to assuming that int is 32 (or fewer) bits, which is still an
> unportable assumption, but likely to work for the foreseeable future
> (famous last words :-)

Yes, right. But it would just be a fix to make the tests succeed, it
wouldn't really count for much on a 64 bit platform.

Maybe one of the authors of this test could perhaps voice an opinion on
what to do?


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