Boost logo

Boost Users :

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?


Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at