On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:37:44PM +0100, John Maddock wrote:
Since I do not want to use -pedantic but not specify -Wno-longlong--I really do want the 'pedantic' warnings with unadorned extensions like long long warned--it is likely that I (and perhaps many other people who use GCC) will retain something like this patch locally if it is deemed inappropriate for Boost. This would be unfortunate.
I certainly think it makes sense to do something to allow compiling with -pedantic. Since -std=c++98 has little effect on g++ (at least until C++0x exists and is supported) it's possible (I won't claim likely) that -pedantic is more commonly used, as it has a real and noticeable effect.
How about something like:
BOOST_EXTENSION(x)
which expands to "__extension__ x" on gcc and "x" otherwise?
Then we can use BOOST_EXTENSION(long long) where necessary.
Thoughts?
I like that. It's obvious that you're talking about the commonly available "long long" type, and also obvious it's an extension. Aaron's long_long type _could_ mean something other than "long long" The __extension__ keyword can be used before any expression that -pedantic rejects, including literals such as 0LL or 0ULL, so that macro would make that BOOST_EXTENSION( 0LL ). jon -- "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift