Re: unsigned int support
* Neelesh Bodas:
On Aug 7, 9:17 am, Neelesh Bodas <neelesh.bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 7, 9:11 am, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You need a 64 bit int. You need a 64 bit compiler. Check your compiler
documentation if you have a 64 bit compiler. It may be long int, or long
long int or something.
Or rather the OP needs (unsigned) long long, which often does not
require a 64 bit compiler (whatever that might be).
long long int has not yet made into the standard.
Or has it? I just noted that I have older copy of the standard [98] :(
No, "long long" i's not yet part of the standard, although "long double" is.
However, if all the OP needs is the ability to hold 64 bits, and perhaps
do some bit-juggling, then that's trivial:
typedef std::bitset<64> Bits64;
Or, for doing arithmetic a good start is
namespace yumyum
{
typedef SOME_INTRINSIC_UINT_TYPE CppUInt32;
struct UInt64
{
private:
CppUint32 myLow;
CppUint32 myHigh;
public:
...
};
}
And it may happen that the OS supports such a type directly at the API
level, so that all that's required for usability is a C++ wrapper (e.g.,
Windows does support this). Or for efficiency one might consider some
inline assembler in the implementation. Although I wouldn't do that
until efficiency became a concern, if ever.
Hth.,
- Alf
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?