> If you could implement the second option, it would be appreciated.
Could you please test this for me? It builds as a powerpc-elf
cross-compiler (at least the host half) but I don't have a power
machine here to test on.
Index: rs6000-c.c
===================================================================
--- rs6000-c.c (revision 216241)
+++ rs6000-c.c (working copy)
@@ -157,12 +157,29 @@ init_vector_keywords (void)
{
__int128_type = get_identifier ("__int128_t");
__uint128_type = get_identifier ("__uint128_t");
}
}
+/* Helper function to find out which RID_INT_N_* code is the one for
+ __int128, if any. Returns RID_MAX+1 if none apply, which is safe
+ (for our purposes, since we always expect to have __int128) to
+ compare against. */
+static int
+rid_int128(void)
+{
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < NUM_INT_N_ENTS; i ++)
+ if (int_n_enabled_p[i]
+ && int_n_data[i].bitsize == 128)
+ return RID_INT_N_0 + i;
+
+ return RID_MAX + 1;
+}
+
/* Called to decide whether a conditional macro should be expanded.
Since we have exactly one such macro (i.e, 'vector'), we do not
need to examine the 'tok' parameter. */
static cpp_hashnode *
rs6000_macro_to_expand (cpp_reader *pfile, const cpp_token *tok)
@@ -231,13 +248,13 @@ rs6000_macro_to_expand (cpp_reader *pfil
if (rid_code == RID_UNSIGNED || rid_code == RID_LONG
|| rid_code == RID_SHORT || rid_code == RID_SIGNED
|| rid_code == RID_INT || rid_code == RID_CHAR
|| rid_code == RID_FLOAT
|| (rid_code == RID_DOUBLE && TARGET_VSX)
- || (rid_code == RID_INT128 && TARGET_VADDUQM))
+ || (rid_code == rid_int128 () && TARGET_VADDUQM))
{
expand_this = C_CPP_HASHNODE (__vector_keyword);
/* If the next keyword is bool or pixel, it
will need to be expanded as well. */
do
tok = cpp_peek_token (pfile, idx++);
