Does your favorite C++ compiler support 64-bit integer types?

[Matt]

Please skip to the last paragraph if you are in a hurry.

Some of the integer variables in my application will need to hold values
bigger than 2^32-1.

Others won't need to be that big. Time and space efficiencies on
run-of-the-mill (read: 32 bit) microcomputers are important.

I want to use some layer of abstraction comparable to C99's stdint.h so
that my variable declarations specify the number of bits.

My app is to run on general-purpose hardware on Linux, Mac, BSD, and
Windows.

I am more interested in practical portability than in ISO standards.
Also it seems to be irrelevant whether the 64-bit type is long or long long.

Which C++ compilers do and which do not have 64-bit integer types? And
do they have something like stdint.h?

[David Harmon]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:19:04 GMT in comp.lang.c++, Matt
<ma**@themattfe lla.zzzz.com> wrote,

Which C++ compilers do and which do not have 64-bit integer types? And
do they have something like stdint.h?

Digital Mars C++ http://www.digitalmars.com
has "long long" and stdint.h.

[John Carson]

"Matt" <ma**@themattfe lla.zzzz.com> wrote in message
news:cP******** ********@news02 .roc.ny

Please skip to the last paragraph if you are in a hurry.

Some of the integer variables in my application will need to hold
values bigger than 2^32-1.

Others won't need to be that big. Time and space efficiencies on
run-of-the-mill (read: 32 bit) microcomputers are important.

I want to use some layer of abstraction comparable to C99's stdint.h
so that my variable declarations specify the number of bits.

My app is to run on general-purpose hardware on Linux, Mac, BSD, and
Windows.

I am more interested in practical portability than in ISO standards.
Also it seems to be irrelevant whether the 64-bit type is long or
long long.

Which C++ compilers do and which do not have 64-bit integer types?
And
do they have something like stdint.h?

Microsofts has a 64 bit data type, though I think it is less efficient than
the 32 bit integer type. The various types (besides the usual int etc.) are
listed here.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...data_types.asp
--
John Carson
1. To reply to email address, remove donald
2. Don't reply to email address (post here instead)

[Matt]

David Harmon wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:19:04 GMT in comp.lang.c++, Matt
<ma**@themattfe lla.zzzz.com> wrote,

Which C++ compilers do and which do not have 64-bit integer types? And
do they have something like stdint.h?

Digital Mars C++ http://www.digitalmars.com
has "long long" and stdint.h.

And its long long is 64 bits?

[Ioannis Vranos]

"Matt" <ma**@themattfe lla.zzzz.com> wrote in message
news:cP******** ********@news02 .roc.ny...

Please skip to the last paragraph if you are in a hurry.

Some of the integer variables in my application will need to hold values
bigger than 2^32-1.

Others won't need to be that big. Time and space efficiencies on
run-of-the-mill (read: 32 bit) microcomputers are important.

I want to use some layer of abstraction comparable to C99's stdint.h so
that my variable declarations specify the number of bits.

You can easily define your own class. I also assume that there must be some
third party free library out there provoding an 64-bit type.

Or you can use a system-specific type like __int64 in .NET.

My app is to run on general-purpose hardware on Linux, Mac, BSD, and
Windows.

I am more interested in practical portability than in ISO standards.
Also it seems to be irrelevant whether the 64-bit type is long or long long.
There isn't long long in standard C++. Portability can be maintained by
using a typedef for built in system-specific types. For example you could
do:
typedef __int 64 Int64

// ...

and change the typedef when you move to another system. The general rule is
"isolate system dependencies in a small portion of the code". You can create
a header file called
system_dependen cies.h or something.


Which C++ compilers do and which do not have 64-bit integer types? And
do they have something like stdint.h?

How many compilers exist out there? How many versions of them? The question
is meaningless. You can basically tell us what OS you are using. For Windows
a nice free port of GCC supporting Win32 API is mingw:

http://www.mingw.org/

If you want it integrated with an IDE you can download Dev-C++:
http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html


Ioannis Vranos

[Chuck McDevitt]

In the Visual Studio 2005 tech preview Microsoft is giving out,
long long is supported and is the same as __int64.

[David Harmon]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:07:48 GMT in comp.lang.c++, Matt
<ma**@themattfe lla.zzzz.com> wrote,

David Harmon wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:19:04 GMT in comp.lang.c++, Matt
<ma**@themattfe lla.zzzz.com> wrote,

Which C++ compilers do and which do not have 64-bit integer types? And
do they have something like stdint.h?

Digital Mars C++ http://www.digitalmars.com
has "long long" and stdint.h.

And its long long is 64 bits?

Yes. I thought I implied that. It would certainly violate expectations
if it was anything less.

Using free command line DMC++ with accompanying stlport library.
Program:

#include <iostream>
int main()
{
int j = 0;
long long int i = 0;
do {
i = (i << 1) + 1;
++j;
std::cout << j << " " << i << '\n';
} while (i > 0);
}

Output:

1 1
2 3
3 7
4 15
5 31
6 63
7 127
8 255
9 511
10 1023
11 2047
12 4095
13 8191
14 16383
15 32767
16 65535
17 131071
18 262143
19 524287
20 1048575
21 2097151
22 4194303
23 8388607
24 16777215
25 33554431
26 67108863
27 134217727
28 268435455
29 536870911
30 1073741823
31 2147483647
32 4294967295
33 8589934591
34 17179869183
35 34359738367
36 68719476735
37 137438953471
38 274877906943
39 549755813887
40 1099511627775
41 2199023255551
42 4398046511103
43 8796093022207
44 17592186044415
45 35184372088831
46 70368744177663
47 140737488355327
48 281474976710655
49 562949953421311
50 112589990684262 3
51 225179981368524 7
52 450359962737049 5
53 900719925474099 1
54 180143985094819 83
55 360287970189639 67
56 720575940379279 35
57 144115188075855 871
58 288230376151711 743
59 576460752303423 487
60 115292150460684 6975
61 230584300921369 3951
62 461168601842738 7903
63 922337203685477 5807
64 -1

[David Harmon]

Here is a brain teaser for anyone who might be interested.
The following numbers (in the second column) all end with the digit
1, 3, 5, or 7. It's obvious why they are all odd. Why can the last
digit never be 9, even if you extended the sequence?
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:57:45 GMT in comp.lang.c++, David Harmon
<so****@netcom. com> wrote,

Program:

#include <iostream>
int main()
{
int j = 0;
long long int i = 0;
do {
i = (i << 1) + 1;
++j;
std::cout << j << " " << i << '\n';
} while (i > 0);
}

Output:

1 1
2 3
3 7
4 15
5 31
6 63
7 127
8 255
9 511
10 1023
11 2047
12 4095
13 8191
14 16383
15 32767
16 65535
17 131071
18 262143
19 524287
20 1048575
21 2097151
22 4194303
23 8388607
24 16777215
25 33554431
26 67108863
27 134217727
28 268435455
29 536870911
30 1073741823
31 2147483647
32 4294967295
33 8589934591
34 17179869183
35 34359738367
36 68719476735
37 137438953471
38 274877906943
39 549755813887
40 1099511627775
41 2199023255551
42 4398046511103
43 8796093022207
44 17592186044415
45 35184372088831
46 70368744177663
47 140737488355327
48 281474976710655
49 562949953421311
50 112589990684262 3
51 225179981368524 7
52 450359962737049 5
53 900719925474099 1
54 180143985094819 83
55 360287970189639 67
56 720575940379279 35
57 144115188075855 871
58 288230376151711 743
59 576460752303423 487
60 115292150460684 6975
61 230584300921369 3951
62 461168601842738 7903
63 922337203685477 5807
64 -1

[John Carson]

"David Harmon" <so****@netcom. com> wrote in message
news:40******** ********@news.w est.earthlink.n et

Here is a brain teaser for anyone who might be interested.
The following numbers (in the second column) all end with the digit
1, 3, 5, or 7. It's obvious why they are all odd. Why can the last
digit never be 9, even if you extended the sequence?

i = (i << 1) + 1;

translates to

i = i*2 +1;

This is a first order difference equation with solution (given the initial
condition)

i_n = 2^n - 1

where i_n is the nth term in the sequence and ^ denotes exponent.
(Alternatively, you are forming each successive number by left-shifting and
adding 1, which means that you have a binary number consisting solely of 1s.
Such numbers are of the form 2^n - 1.)

For a number to end in 9, we would need:

2^n - 1 == K*10 + 9

for some integers n and K. Adding 1 to both sides

2^n == K*10 + 10

or

2^n == (K+1)*10

Dividing both sides by 2:

2^(n-1) == (K+1)*5

We see that the left hand side has 2 as its only prime factor, whereas the
right hand side has 5 as a prime factor. By the unique prime factorisation
theorem, this is impossible if the left and right hand sides are equal. This
shows the equality is impossible. QED.
--
John Carson
1. To reply to email address, remove donald
2. Don't reply to email address (post here instead)

[Matt]

David Harmon wrote:

Here is a brain teaser for anyone who might be interested.
The following numbers (in the second column) all end with the digit
1, 3, 5, or 7. It's obvious why they are all odd. Why can the last
digit never be 9, even if you extended the sequence?

It would imply that some power of two is divisible by five.