https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43622
--- Comment #26 from John Maddock <john at johnmaddock dot co.uk> --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #25) > On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, john at johnmaddock dot co.uk wrote: > > > While we're opening cans of worms.... intmax_t should clearly be __int128... > > just saying! > > Existing ABIs where intmax_t in libc is 64-bit are why __int128 is what I > call a sui generis extended type, not an integer type. So it's an integer that's not an integer? I'm sorry but that's just nonesense. Of course I realise that ABI issues may trump other concerns, but please call a spade a spade! In any case this is a glibc issue and we're off topic here...
