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 <kmil...@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" <pr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:51:52AM +0200, rom...@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]]
______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
