On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Mike Stump wrote: > I don't have time to re-implement __int128 support in the compiler for > you. > > So, are there any other specific actionable things I can do for you to > make the patch acceptable?
No. The right way to make __int256 support - the feature, not the present patch at all - acceptable for me is a series of incremental patches converting the existing __int128 support to use hooks for the target to define what __intN types it has without the architecture-independent compiler needing to hardcode the details of those types. You might push on whoever added __int128 support to add testcases for it - tests that __int128 works as expected including execution of all the usual C integer operations as well as __int128 being accecpted and rejected in the right contexts - since such tests are unfortunately missing. Having such tests would both help validate that a reworking of __int128 support does not cause regressions, as well as being a possible basis to add tests of __int256. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
