https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113887
--- Comment #11 from Joseph S. Myers <jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org> --- As I said in comment#2, I prefer a constant suffix for __int128 to the wb/uwb hack - I think it's cleaner, as well as allowing int128_t to work properly on all the targets that support __int128 but have not so far had an ABI for _BitInt defined, or not had such an ABI implemented in GCC. (I also think it's time to chase up target maintainers for all the architectures that don't yet have _BitInt support, which is almost all of them, inviting them to sort out an ABI definition either locally in GCC, in conjunction with other implementations or in an actual ABI document, as appropriate depending on the extent to which GCC for that target tries to interoperate with other implementations or externally defined ABIs, and then add the support, but that's a separate matter.)
