https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113887
--- Comment #12 from Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt at inria dot fr> --- (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #11) > 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. Maybe. But that does not have much to do with the very specific question asked here.
