From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-17 20:36:27
At Monday 2005-01-17 12:31, you wrote:
>"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> skrev i meddelandet
> > At Monday 2005-01-17 02:19, you wrote:
> >>Sorry, wrong example. Should have been
> >>cout << strlen("");
> >>cout << vector<int>().size();
> >>which both give me warnings with /Wp64
> >>warning C4267: 'argument' : conversion from 'size_t' to 'unsigned
> >>possible loss of data
> > IMO this falls directly in Dinkumware's lap. ALL of the code was
> > written by them (well the headers).
> > It's fairly clear that there should be no restrictions on outputting
> > the return from .size()
>And there isn't.
>The compiler chooses one of the gazillion overloads of operator<< for a
>32 bit value, and then informs us that it wouldn't be the proper one to
>use for a 64 bit value. Duh!
>The feature is just broken. Why not use the proper 64 bit compiler for
>the 64 bit tests?
it also fails on streamsize ever since they allowed files > 4gb
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk