On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:36:56 -0000, "John Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Could we subordinate BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG to >> defined(BOOST_ENABLE_LONG_LONG)? > >I would rather that BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG was just not defined in the first >place when EDG is in strict mode - any ideas? When Intel? Or when EDG? In the second case I would say no, because EDG based compilers usually accept long long even in strict mode if you enable it with --long_long. It's just that Intel (6.0) doesn't seem to like it :-/ Anyhow, how do you propose to avoid the warnings issued in non-strict mode? Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
