https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119408
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4) > The reason is we already added __float128 for "compatibility with existing > code" so it makes sense to add Q as well. And we have "use a suffix ‘q’ or > ‘Q’ for > ‘__float128’" in https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Floating-Types.html, to > me it implies if __float128 is supported, q and Q should be supported too. Yes, that was how I read the docs too. If the type __float128 is supported, then the Q suffix should be supported, *or* the docs should be updated to say Q isn't always supported :-)
