Re: [Boost-users] long long support with GCC

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-25 17:29:39

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 17:16:38 -0500, Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote
> Hi,
> 
> As I'm sure you know, long long and unsigned long long are supported 
> by GCC in C++.  However, -std=c++98 (not quite sure why, to be 
> honest) and -pedantic cause lots of warnings and errors to be 
> generated in the Boost headers when long long is used.  In my 
> project, it is desirable to use these flags for other reasons, but 
> the effect these flags have on the Boost headers is decidedly undesirable.
> 
> So far, I've been wrapping the Boost headers in forwarding headers that
> mark the Boost headers as system headers so that they compile without
> warning or error.  Is there any disadvantage to doing this?
> 
> GCC supports long long even with the above options, but only if
> __extension__ is used.  I notice that there a Boost-standard 64bit 
> type, boost::int64_t.  Is there some reason that this can't be typedef'ed
> using the GCC extension, and then this identifier used in all places
> where 'long long' is being used?  Are there type system rules that
> prevent this, or some other reason?

Is there some particular boost header that is using long long directly? 
date_time uses 64 bit types, but it uses boost::int64_t and its friends to be
portable.  Or are you saying that just using boost:int64_t is causing the problem?

Jeff