Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As I've asked in a recent post, I would like to have boost not using > non-standard features (e.g. long long), unless they are explicitly > requested by the user. The reason, besides general boost philosophy > considerations, is that, with some compilers, it is otherwise > impossible to compile code that includes boost headers, even if the > client code makes no use of the offending feature. For instance, Intel > C++ 6.0 in --strict mode flags any use of long long with an error, and > the obvious -Qoption,c,--long_long isn't accepted (maybe there's an > alternative for it though, I don't know). > > Could we subordinate BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG to > defined(BOOST_ENABLE_LONG_LONG)?
Even if we're willing to break user code and tell them they have to define that macro explicitly, we'd have to be very careful; we have tests that exercise long long and we don't want to break those or disable that part of the testing. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
