Subject: Re: [boost] unsigned long vs unsigned int vs std::size_t (32bplatform)
From: Bo Persson (bop_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-20 17:52:22
Christoph Mathys wrote:
> Thomas Suckow wrote:
>> Christoph Mathys wrote:
>>> void someFunc(boost::uint16_t) { }
>>> void someFunc(boost::uint32_t) { }
>>> void someFunc(std::size_t) { }
>>>
>>>
>> Not sure if you are optimizing for 16bit and 32bit.
>
> It is actually code handling some endianness stuff.
>
>> Wouldn't a template function be appropriate here?
>
> Maybe a template function would be more appropriate, avoiding
> possibly dangerous conversions by putting a static assert into the
> default implementation. But I'd still have to provide
> specializations for uint32_t and unsigned long or uint32_t and
> unsigned int, depending
> on the platform.
>
> Ideally, I'd like to work only with those fixed width integers if I
> need to provide an implementation for every integer type, avoiding
> code
> noise with ifdef and co.
>
For sure, the typedefs must be an alias for some of the built in
types, so you would have to provide overloads for them - unsigned
short, unsigned int, unsigned long, and (in the very near future)
unsigned long long.
Bo Persson