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

From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-17 14:27:38

Scott Schurr wrote:
> "Reece Dunn" <msclrhd_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.  

Do you mean compilers that target 64-bit platforms like VC8.0-AMD64, or 
compilers that have 64-bit types enabled? (See below).

> 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.

The 32-bit microsoft compiler has support for 64-bit literals if you 
have version 7.0 or above handy (6.0 might have this, but I haven't 
checked). You will need to enable language extensions. I am not sure 
about the other compilers, though.

It should be possible to test the 64-bit stuff on a 32-bit compiler like 
VC7 with MS language extensions, or even GCC.

You may get warnings when converting a 64-bit type to a 32-bit type, or 
even a 32-bit type to a 16-bit type. However, the solution for this is:

    long num = long( 2i64 );
               ^^^^
Tell the compiler that we want this 64- to 32-bit conversion.

> 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.

No problem.

- Reece