Patches item #1507034, was opened at 2006-06-15 22:43 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=307586&aid=1507034&group_id=7586 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Scott McMurray (me22) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: [integer] add support for integers longer than long Initial Comment: With the endian discussion, I looked at Boost.Integer to try to figure out why it didn't support long long and __int64 where possible. Since I couldn't see a reason why it shouldn't, I went ahead and implemented it. The only major interface change is adding additional ValueUpper template parameters to int_(max|min)_value_t and uint_value_t. They default to 0, so no valid old code should be affected. They allow the programmer to use, for example, uint_value_t<0x34567890,0x12> to request a type that can hold 0x1234567890 or int_min_value_t<-0x34567890,-0x12> to request a type that can hold -0x1234567890, which will properly fail if there are no types available over 32 bits (instead of just truncating the constant and giving the wrong result). I also took the opportunity to add int_exact_t templates for cases where an exact number of bits is needed. int_exact_t<32>::exact, for example. ( Ideally this would be an additional typedef inside int_t and uint_t, but I couldn't come up with a simple way of doing that. If it were acceptable to have exact as a typedef for void when not available, it'd be easy, but that goes against existing practice. ) If this isn't wanted, it's very easy to remove. If this looks good I'll try to decipher the macros in the test suite to add some new ones. The changes don't cause any regressions from integer_test.cpp under my g++ 3.3.6, 3.4.6, or 4.1.1. In keeping with the rationale and noticing that it works just about all the compilers, I used no partial specialisation or recursion, so I'm hoping that it'll work fine in the more troublesome compilers as well. Unfortunately portage tell me that gcc-2* is to old to work with the rest of my system, so I haven't been able to try. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=307586&aid=1507034&group_id=7586 _______________________________________________ Boost-bugs mailing list Boost-bugs@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-bugs