From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-09 03:42:01
On Jul 8, 2008, at 5:01 PM, Steven Ross wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Phil Endecott <
> spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Steven Ross wrote:
>> - Does it work with uint64_t? I see some variables declared as
>>>> which often can't store a uint64_t.
>>> There exists the problem of how to identify and deal with
>>> negatives. I
>>> to avoid forcing any particular return data type
>> Why not just use Iterator::value_type (or whatever it's called; or
>> iterator_traits thing) everywhere?
>> They are already divided
>>> by 512, so an unsigned should fit inside a signed data type without
>> Dividing a 64-bit value by 512 does not make it small enough to
>> fit in a
>> 32-bit long. (Have I misunderstood you?)
> I was suggesting using an int64_t, which will hold a 64-bit value,
> so yes,
> there was a misunderstanding.
> The problem is that I need to use the return type of the user's >>
> and with the same code supporting any-size data and both signed and
> integers, I need a data type that can support all the different
> Is there some way I can grab the return type of the user's >>
> method and use
> it directly?
> Otherwise, I think int64_t should work as long as it's fast until
> start using 128-bit values.
Why not use boost::uintmax_t?
-- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk