Boost logo

Boost :

From: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-26 02:40:30

Beman Dawes <bdawes <at>> writes:

> I spoke too soon. The reason intptr_t and uintptr_t were omitted was because
> they are not required by C99, and hence not required by TR1.
> So we should discuss this further before applying Maxim's patch.
> On one hand, we may not want Boost code to use a feature that may not be
> present.
> OTOH, if virtually all modern C++ compilers do support an integral type
> large enough to hold a pointer, why not supply intptr_t and uintptr_t?

I second this option. I know I'll be needing this facility in the
near future, and probably other libs can take advantage of it as
well (pointer hashing in Boost.Hash, for instance.)

> One possibility is to go ahead and supply intptr_t and uintptr_t, and also
> configuration macro.

Is BOOST_HAS_INTPTR_TYPES supposed to inform whether there
are vendor-provided ::intrptr_t/::uintrptr_t types? If so, I
fail to see its utility, since boost::intrptr_t/boost::untrptr_t
can be provided universally.

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

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