From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-15 17:53:04
> There seems to be a lot of confusion about these macros, so let me try and
> give you the full lowdown:
> Indicates that boost::int64_t and boost_uint64_t do not exist in
> boost/cstdint.hpp. It's a defect macro because these types are documented
> as existing; it doesn't indicate a defect in the compiler, although if
> we're being picky, neither these types nor *any* of the exact width types
> in boost/cstdint.hpp are required to be supported by C99. If you need a
> 64-bit integer type then this macro is the one to check (and then use
> Note these macros should only be used when overloading/specialising
> for all intrinsic types, such usage should probably be infequent IMO.
This is exactly my problem with polymorphic_(i/o)archive.hpp. Its an
interface class that redirects save/load for all intrinsic types to the
implementation in a derived class. Among the intrinsic types considered is
long and int64 (long long is not considered - the name suggested a compiler
dependent kludge). Currently I use BOOST_NO_INT64 but now I see that this
fails on at least one machine where apparently int64 is a typedef or macro
for long. In this environment I get a compile error because a rather than a
function overload I get a compiler error with function redefinition.
Before, I had a homemade BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_INT64_T which seemed to work.
What is the best thing to do in this situation?
> The macros BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_INT64_T and BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_UINT64_T
> appear to have been removed, so no cleanup necessary :-)
:-( It seems that this is just what I need. I didn't realize it existed as
I just depended on the information in the documentation and didn't look at
the config.hpp file.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk