Karl, 

Brian gave some insights already. 

I'm also reluctant to use int64_t because there does not seem to be a standard version of what the type is. Eg on OSX, int64_t is a typedef to long long. IIRC there are cases where it is a typedef to long ... 

At least with long an long long they are guaranteed to be different types and i dont need to resort to configure voodoo, i can just rely on the compiler and its preprocessor. 

Romain

Le 20 sept. 2013 à 04:04, Karl Millar <kmillar@google.com> a écrit :

> Romain,
> 
> Can you use int64_t and uint_t64 instead?  IMHO that would be more useful than long long anyway.
> 
> Karl
> 
> On Sep 19, 2013 5:33 PM, "Patrick Welche" <prlw1@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:51:52AM +0200, romain@r-enthusiasts.com wrote:
>> > In Rcpp we'd like to do something useful for types such as long long
>> > and unsigned long long.
>> ...
>> > But apparently this is still not enough and on some versions of gcc
>> > (e.g. 4.7 something), -pedantic still generates the warnings unless
>> > we also use -Wno-long-long
>> 
>> Can you also add -std=c++0x or is that considered as bad as adding
>> -Wno-long-long?
>> 
>> (and why not use autoconf's AC_TYPE_LONG_LONG_INT and
>> AC_TYPE_UNSIGNED_LONG_LONG_INT for the tests?)
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Patrick
>> 
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

