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