Future evolution of c++config.h and _GLIBCXX_USE_LONG_LONG

[Paolo Carlini]

Matt Austern wrote:

> I suppose another question that's implicit but that I didn't ask is: 
> would it be a desirable feature to give users a way of getting a fully 
> conforming C++ language/library implementation without having to 
> reconfigure and reinstall?  Should there be a compiler switch that 
> does that?

As far as the library is concerned, having _GLIBCXX_USE_LONG_LONG
always defined (or removing the macro completely) basically means having a
few additional num_get::do_get and num_put::do_put overloads defined, 
besides
what is mandated by the current standard. I don't think this can really 
hurt, but
perhaps you or Benjamin or Gaby could explain in gory technical details the
risks of this, which, honestly, I fail to really grasp.

Paolo.