You don't need to go to 64-bit to see something like this. Consider int32_t
on common 32-bit platforms. It might be typedef
'ed as int
or as a long
, but obviously only one of the two at a time. int
and long
are of course distinct types.
It's not hard to see that there is no workaround which makes int == int32_t == long
on 32-bit systems. For the same reason, there's no way to make long == int64_t == long long
on 64-bit systems.
If you could, the possible consequences would be rather painful for code that overloaded foo(int)
, foo(long)
and foo(long long)
- suddenly they'd have two definitions for the same overload?!
The correct solution is that your template code usually should not be relying on a precise type, but on the properties of that type. The whole same_type
logic could still be OK for specific cases:
long foo(long x);
std::tr1::disable_if(same_type(int64_t, long), int64_t)::type foo(int64_t);
I.e., the overload foo(int64_t)
is not defined when it's exactly the same as foo(long)
.
[edit] With C++11, we now have a standard way to write this:
long foo(long x);
std::enable_if<!std::is_same<int64_t, long>::value, int64_t>::type foo(int64_t);
[edit] Or C++20
long foo(long x);
int64_t foo(int64_t) requires (!std::is_same_v<int64_t, long>);