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

From: Shams (shams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-05 03:49:22

Yes you're right, I meant LLP64.

At least they've gone with LP64 on Interix (SUA) or forced to I should say.

Thanks
Shams

-- 
"Andrew Holden" <aholden_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:1D97E025367AFB4A8C528590A3715BF4EC8E_at_archerysummit2.willamette.charteroaksys
> Shams wrote:
>> 1. With most (all?) 64-bit Linux/Unix following the LP64 model:
>> http://www.unix.org/version2/whatsnew/lp64_wp.html
>
>> 2. However with M$ 64bit Windows following the ILP64 there is no other
>> choice but int_t<64>::least gives "long" or "long long".
>
> Are you sure you meant to type "ILP64"?  If I understand the above
> document correctly, Microsoft chose the LLP64 model.  Under Windows 64,
> int and long are both 32 bits, while long long and pointer are 64 bits.
> int_t<64>::least would need to give "long long" or "__int64" under
> 64-bit Windows.  Microsoft seems to prefer __int64 in their
> documentation and system headers.