> ------- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-06 > Look at the routines we implement in libgcc and ask again. We never did > implement sub-word routines.
Which is an interesting point, but wouldn't it be more ideal to define default built-in's for each of a target's defined unique sized types independently of it's word size? (Thereby enabling operations to operate on the smallest sized operands necessary to satisfy it's destination precision requirements without having to otherwise unnecessarily promote smaller operations to their larger defined counterparts if advantageous to do so?)
