Yes, that's why he shouldn't use it. "long long" sends many compilers into severe hissy fits.
boost::uint64_t is a good choice if the code is already using the boost lib, which I think it is. Brian On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Matthew Chambers < [email protected]> wrote: > Also, AFAIK, long int is just a verbose form of long (like int == signed > int), so it will behave the same way. You may be thinking of long long > (which is what uint64_t and maxint_t evaluate to on modern GCCs). > > > On 3/31/2010 5:23 PM, Matthew Chambers wrote: > >> You can also use boost::uint64_t or boost::maxint_t. It's probably >> unreasonable to get more cross-platform than those. >> >> -Matt >> >> >> On 3/31/2010 5:08 PM, Brian Pratt wrote: >> >>> Yeah, those ought to be off_t instead of int (or even long int). >>> Actually use ramp_fileoffset_t if you can, it's set up for crossplatform >>> compiles. >>> >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "spctools-discuss" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<spctools-discuss%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/spctools-discuss?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "spctools-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/spctools-discuss?hl=en.
