On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 09:22:04PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2024, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> > Maybe it is better to just use _BitInt instead of __int128. Yes the
> > number of targets that support _BitInt for C is less than __int128 but
> > in the future _BitInt will be more supported than __int128 especially
> > on 32bit targets. E.g. _BitInt(128) is supported on 32bit x86 while
> > __int128 is not.
>
> Given the use of extern "C" in this header code, I think this target
> library may be built as C++ (where we don't support _BitInt).
If it is for the library, guess one workaround could be represent it as
struct with the right size/alignment and use separate C source
for the actual arithmetics on it.
Jakub
