Re: [boost] Why the integration branchmust remain clean, etc.

Subject: Re: [boost] Why the integration branchmust remain clean, etc.
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-08 18:01:51

On Tuesday 09 June 2009 01:54:18 you wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 June 2009 00:53:31 Steven Watanabe wrote:
> > AMDG
> >
> > Andrey Semashev wrote:
> > > * Sandia-sun - tests fail to compile with the ridiculous error "int64_t
> > > is not a member of boost", while other platforms, including
> > > Sandia-Linux-sun, are fine.
> >
> > This isn't a ridiculous error at all.  Uses of int64_t should be
> > protected by
> > #ifndef BOOST_NO_INT64_T
>
> Strange, I was sure these tests were successful some time ago, so 64-bit
> integers should be available on these compilers. Looking at Boost.Config
> tests, it looks like config tests aren't run on this compiler, so we
> actually don't know if BOOST_NO_INT64_T is valid.

Oh, well, I'm being hasty. Sorry. The config test seems to pass. How did 
date_time tests pass before is still beyond me.