Re: [boost] BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_INT64_T

Subject: Re: [boost] BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_INT64_T
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-25 10:33:15

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:05 AM, John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> boost config includes BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T.
>>>
>>> boost Is there any chance we might see BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_INT64_T
>>> appear in the near future?
>>
>> Should we reserve the BOOST_NO_* names for broken compilers that fail
>> to correctly support a language or standard library feature?
>
> Yes.
>
>> In other words, should these two be named:
>>
>>   BOOST_HAS_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T
>>   BOOST_HAS_INTRINSIC_INT64_T
>
> Well... last I looked an intrinsic wchar_t (ie not a typedef for an int
> type) *was* a std feature :-)

I guess "INTRINSIC" is confusing me. I assumed it meant the compiler
was dealing with those types by inlining assembler code rather than
calling functions, in the same sense as the word is used for intrinsic
functions.

So I withdraw my objection.

Thanks,

--Beman