https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113887
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
AFAIK glibc doesn't support %w128d etc., it would require full
int128_t/uint128_t support, likely
int_least128_t/uint_least128_t/int_fast128_t/uint_fast128_t,
INT128_WIDTH/UINT128_WIDTH, {,U}INT_{LEAST,FAST}128_WIDTH, INT128_C, UINT128_C,
...
I'm not sure one can use wb/uwb literal suffixes because at least in GCC
_BitInt support is for now x86_64 only (with posted patches for ia32/aarch64)
and in clang the support is without stable ABI, so perhaps if enabled, it would
need to be limited to
__BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 128 targets, because without some __int128 specific
suffixes or
__BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 128 one can't support INT128_C or UINT128_C.
