Re: [boost] [integer] Proposal: minor addition to cstdint.hpp: largest integer types for value-based template arguments

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-22 01:26:11

Added as ticket #2135, <http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/2135>,  
so I/we don't forget.

On Jul 17, 2008, at 4:02 AM, Daryle Walker wrote:

> I just added some class templates that had declarations like:
>
> //========================================
> template < intmax_t Value >
>     struct whatever;
> //========================================
>
> Afterwards, I was looking over some of the Boost.Integer headers  
> and got curious about the BOOST_NO_INTEGRAL_INT64_T setting used  
> within <boost/integer_traits.hpp>.  I think we could add two  
> typedefs to <boost/cstdint.hpp>
>
> //========================================
> #if !defined(BOOST_NO_INT64_T) && defined(BOOST_NO_INTEGRAL_INT64_T)
>     typedef   signed long   intmaxc_t;
>     typedef unsigned long  uintmaxc_t;
> #else
>     typedef  intmax_t   intmaxc_t;
>     typedef uintmax_t  uintmaxc_t;
> #endif
> //========================================
>
> Where "intmaxc_t" is the largest signed integer type that is  
> suitable for integer constant expressions (like value-based  
> template parameters) and "uintmaxc_t" is the unsigned equivalent.   
> They should be the same as "intmax_t" and "uintmax_t" on non-broken  
> compilers.  I'd change my code to use the new types, to be safer.

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT hotmail DOT com