Re: [boost] [Review] of binary_int utility starts

From: Scott Schurr (scott_schurr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-17 13:28:00

"Reece Dunn" <msclrhd_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Scott Schurr wrote:
> >I suspect that there's a problem with the size of the literals
> >on the 64-bit compilers.  Does one declare a 64-bit literal by
> >appending a double L ('LL')?  If so, then I'll give that a try.
> 
> This will depend on the compiler. I am not sure what GCC does, but for MS 
> (and compatible compilers - Borland, CodeWarrior, Intel and others) you do:
> 
>    __int64 biglit = 2i64;
>    unsigned __int64 biglit2 = 2ui64;
> 
> If GCC has the ll and ull prefixes, you could create a macro for defining 
> signed/unsigned 64-bit literals either where uint64_t is defined or in 
> Boost.Config. e.g.:
> 
>    uint64_t biglit = MAKE_UINT64_T( 2 );

Thanks for that information.  I think what I'll want to do, for a
first cut, is always produce 64-bit literals for 64-bit capable
compilers.  

I'm going to wait until after the review period to start on fixing 
the 64-bit support.  Since I don't have a local 64-bit compiler
I'll be working blind and my first few efforts will be dead wrong.

At an initial glance it looks like 64-bit support should be 
achievable without heroic efforts.  But it certainly won't come
along for free.

Thanks again Reece.

Scott Schurr