Re: [boost] [config] Why is BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG defined insuffix.hpp?

From: Douglas Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-19 11:06:55

On Jul 19, 2005, at 5:41 AM, John Maddock wrote:

>> But shouldn't this go into some prefix file instead of a postfile 
>> file?
>
> We've always used the suffix file for stuff like this that is supposed 
> to be "generic".  Of course if we run into enough problems that might 
> have to change, but I don't think we're there yet.
>
>> See http://tinyurl.com/aywa7, it failes because of missing support 
>> for long
>> long in the iostream library.
>
> Yep, I can reproduce that via HP-Testdrive, worse the std lib *does* 
> support numeric_limits<long long>, it's just the iostreams stuff 
> that's missing.
>
> As far as limits_test is concerned there's a workaround for the same 
> problem with MSVC specifically for that test, I've tested the 
> following patch as a workaround for gcc, and it fixes the issue for 
> now, but we should probably add a new config macro or something if 
> there are any other tests affected though.  What do you think?  Should 
> this go into 1.33?  It's probably a little close for comfort, Doug?

Yes, go ahead with the change to the test. The config macro will have 
to wait until 1.34, of course.

        Doug