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
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk