https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99708
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> Maybe we could do this instead:
>
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc
> @@ -623,11 +623,13 @@ rs6000_cpu_cpp_builtins (cpp_reader *pfile)
> if (TARGET_FRSQRTES)
> builtin_define ("__RSQRTEF__");
> if (TARGET_FLOAT128_TYPE)
> + {
> builtin_define ("__FLOAT128_TYPE__");
> + if (ieee128_float_type_node)
> + builtin_define ("__SIZEOF_FLOAT128__=16");
> + }
> if (ibm128_float_type_node)
> builtin_define ("__SIZEOF_IBM128__=16");
> - if (ieee128_float_type_node)
> - builtin_define ("__SIZEOF_FLOAT128__=16");
> #ifdef TARGET_LIBC_PROVIDES_HWCAP_IN_TCB
> builtin_define ("__BUILTIN_CPU_SUPPORTS__");
> #endif
But why is ieee128_float_type_node not zero then? That doesn't make
much sense, so this would just be hiding problems.
> It would be nice to add a test to the testsuite along the lines of:
>
> /* { dg-do compile } */
> #ifdef __SIZEOF_FLOAT128__
> __float128 f;
> #endif
Sure, if we want this to be a generic macro, that is an excellent idea. Also
for the other types?
