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?
>> In other words, should these two be named:
> 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
So I withdraw my objection.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk