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

From: Markus Schöpflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-20 03:29:52

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.

You may be right.

>>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.

BTW, spe171 is the machine where the boost regression tests are running. It 
has CXX V6.5-042 installed and gcc-3.3.6 and gcc-3.4.4 are located in 
/usr/local.

> 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?

The patch looks ok, and yes, I think we need a new config macro for this 
(BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG_IO perhaps), because there are other libraries failing 
because of this. (Wave, utility, maybe more.)

Thanks, Markus