> Another problem is that the type long long exists but is not supported > by the standard library (e.g. the operator <<(std::ostream&, long long) > is not defined). Since long and long long are both 64 bit there is > actually no need to ever use long long. I'll have to check why long > long is used in some of the tests.
The lack of support of standard library functions associated with long long is a problem on other platforms and other functions (eg: std::abs). This has been a headache for me using the int64_t in date-time. So I presume that the boost::int64_t is typedefed to long for the Cray now? Curiously the one failure for date-time was in handling of big time durations. The failure is probably an overflow problem, which can happen if you try to use a plain 32-bit integer to get nano-second resolutions and large time durations. Nano-second resolution is the default configuration for the library and it normally uses a 64-bit type for efficient calculation... Jeff _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
