From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-07 08:49:55
Paul Mensonides wrote:
> > > Supporting [extended length integers] is not a good idea.
> > > IMO, it is just the beginning of non-standard extensions.
> > > For the purpose of cross-compiling, I don't have a
> problem with an
> > > option to specify the width.
> > But what about cross compiling from a 32-bit platform for a 64-bit
> > target?
> > (which strikes me as a perfectly reasonable thing to do today).
> It is reasonable. I'm not against being able to explicitly
> set the width with some sort of option--as long as it is
> explicit. What I'm basically saying is that once the option
> is set, the preprocessor should do everything at exactly that
> width (*as if* the width was the widest supported integral
> type for the platform--which is required by the standard) and
> reject anything that requires more. If the width isn't the
> width of the actual target, then the user is lying--which
> gives them an explicit way-out hack if absolutely necessary.
That was exactly, what I had in mind.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk