Re: ostream and long long

[David Durham <david dot durham at wcom dot com>]

Well... the only thing in config.log I found about 'long long' is this:

...

607: configure:3522: checking for enabled ISO C99 support
608: configure:3568: checking for enabled long long support
609: configure:3578: checking for c header strategy to use

...

It doesn't say that it did or did not enable it... configure:3568 is
checking some variable for 'yes' which I believe is set by
--enable-long-long... Or something...

What's the deal with this...   


On 25 Jul 2001 17:13:35 -0400, Phil Edwards wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 04:04:59PM -0500, David Durham wrote:
> > Actually, I may have seen what Andris is saying...  I'm on solaris-2.5.1
> > and I recompiled with --enable-long-long and 'ostream << long long int'
> > is still not valid... I even opened up the header file
> > include/g++-v3/bits/std_ostream.h and see that operator<<(ostream &,
> > long long) is defined IF _GLIBCPP_USE_LONG_LONG is defined... But
> > apparently _GLIBCPP_USE_LONG_LONG was not defined even though I re-ran
> > configure --enable-long-long  on a new empty build directory
> 
> You don't get _GLIBCPP_USE_LONG_LONG just because --enable-long-long was
> passed during configuration.
> 
> You get _GLIBCPP_USE_LONG_LONG if and only if both of the following are true:
> 
> 1)  Either --enable-long-long was passed, or it was on by default.
> 
> 2)  The underlying support routines necessary to make 'long long' work
>     are found during configuration.
> 
> If those hold, then 'configure' defines _GLIBCPP_USE_LONG_LONG to let
> the rest of the library code know that 'long long' can be safely used.
> It's not meant for users to define on its own.
> 
> So.  If you have done (1) but _GLIBCPP_USE_LONG_LONG is undefined,
> then (2) is failing.  You should look in your build directory's
> <cpu>-<vendor>-<OS>/libstdc++-v3/config.log to see the results of the
> configure tests, and see why the tests for 'long long' support are failing
> for you.
> 
> 
> Phil
> 
> -- 
> Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in
> new language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance
> which has grown stale, which men of old have spoken.
>                                      - anonymous Egyptian scribe, c.1700 BC