Re: [Boost-users] [integer] Request: long long (64 bits) supportforint_t and uint_t

From: Niels Dekker - mail address until 2007-11-30 (nd_mail_address_valid_until_2007-11-30_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-03 05:41:53

Shams wrote:
> 1. With most (all?) 64-bit Linux/Unix following the LP64 model:
> http://www.unix.org/version2/whatsnew/lp64_wp.html
> 
> int_t<64>::least could give either a "long" or "long long" .
> uint_t<64>::least could give either a "unsigned long" or
> "unsigned long long".
> 
> In this case I'd prefer just "long" or "unsigned long".

No problem, I guess.  I guess that after adding long-long-support,
int_t<64>::least would still select "long", rather than "long long", on
a platform that has 64-bits "long" integers.

> 2. However with M$ 64bit Windows following the ILP64 there is no other
> choice but int_t<64>::least gives "long" or "long long".

Hmmm... I wasn't even aware of ILP64! Thanks! Does Boost support ILP64
platforms?  If so, I guess int_t<32>::least should select _int32,
instead of int, on such a platform!

> 3. Now I remember someone already already come up with a patch?

Apparently yes!  Just after posting my question, I found a ticket,
submitted by "me22" a year ago, and assigned to Daryle Walker:
Ticket #653, "[integer] add support for integers longer than long"
http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/653

When would it be implemented within a Boost release version?

Kind regards, Niels