[Rcpp-devel] long long

[Romain Francois]

Le 19/09/13 20:53, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
>
> On 19 September 2013 at 20:08, Romain Francois wrote:
> | Alright, so with these settings -pedantic turns on -Wlong-long
> |
> | I can disable them with -Wno-long-long
> |
> | Can we detect gcc with a configure and set -Wno-long-long, is that allowed ?
> |
> | Where in the CRAN policies does it say that -pedantic should be used ? I
> | did not find it.
>
> Where does it say that CRAN Policies are fully specified and written out?
>
> Please just take my word for it based on a few years of dealing with Kurt and
> CRAN, and / or experiment yourself with a small (new ?) package of yours.
>
> Because this will not fly I would prefer that the change be rolled back.
 >
> People who really need long long already have an easy hook:  -std=c++11

Which does not work for me.

> | We don't actually "compile" code that needs rcpp_long_long_type in Rcpp
> | (in the .cpp files), so I might have an idea to move this problem.
> |
> | We could put this behind another define, like this:
> |
> | #if defined(RCPP_LONG_LONG_SUPPORT)
> | #if defined(__GNUC__) &&  defined(__LONG_LONG_MAX__)
> |      __extension__ typedef long long int rcpp_long_long_type;
> |      __extension__ typedef unsigned long long int rcpp_ulong_long_type;
> |      #define RCPP_HAS_LONG_LONG_TYPES
> | #endif
> | #endif
> |
> | so that Rcpp compiles fine, and if someone wants to use it, then in
> | their code thay can :
> |
> | #define RCPP_LONG_LONG_SUPPORT
> | #include <Rcpp.h>
> |
> | On your machine with your settings, this no longer warns.
>
> Sure, but this seems like is bike-shedding: A local variant already had this
> by simply adding -std=c++11 as C++ post-1998 has long long types.  Now you
> just renamed the handle, for no real tangible benefit.  I know this is
> frustrating, and I don;t mean to be difficult.  But if we fight a fight with
> CRAN, let's fight over C++11.  This issue here does not really matter.

We could have an if between c++11 or this define. This way it works for 
me __and__ as before. Can you handle that.

> And personally, I'd prefer a bit more stability in our core headers.  The
> previous setting worked for a number of years.
>
> Dirk

You want stability, I want to make progress. The same fight all over again.

-- 
Romain Francois
Professional R Enthusiast
+33(0) 6 28 91 30 30