Scott McMurray wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 13:08, Othman, Ossama <ossama.othman@intel.com> wrote:
If you want the largest native integer, though not 100% portable to weird archs, this should work in x86/x64 and most others:
typedef boost::int_t<sizeof(void*) * 8>::fast fastint_t; Why not just use the standard {u}intptr_t or {u}intmax_t typedef in this case?
For intptr_t, this message comes to mind: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2005/09/94158.php
True, but IMO it is an error in the C standard, that it did not add a similar statement for (u)intptr_t as it does for the exact integer types (u)intN_t, which says in 7.18.1.1/3: "These types are optional. However, if an implementation provides integer types with widths of 8, 16, 32, or 64 bits, no padding bits, and (for the signed types) that have a two’s complement representation, it shall define the corresponding typedef names." If this had been done, you could always use (u)intptr_t where boost::int_t<sizeof(void*) * CHAR_BIT>::fast would be a feasible instantiation. Side note: Is anyone aware of the proper forum/contact person to address this issue to persons near to the C standard? Just my 2 euro cents, Daniel