https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101713
Jens Gustedt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jens.gustedt at inria dot fr
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113887
--- Comment #12 from Jens Gustedt ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #11)
> As I said in comment#2, I prefer a constant suffix for __int128 to the
> wb/uwb hack - I think it's cleaner, as well as allowing int128_t to work
> properly o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113887
--- Comment #9 from Jens Gustedt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> > #define INT128_C(N) ((__int128)+ N ## W)
>
> You mean WB?
Yes, probably ;-)
> > With that observation you easily also create `MIN` and `MAX` macros
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113887
--- Comment #7 from Jens Gustedt ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #5)
> ... including __INT128_C and __UINT128_C
> defined to use an appropriate constant suffix.
You don't need a specific suffix for these types if you have `_BitInt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113887
--- Comment #6 from Jens Gustedt ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #5)
> Compiler and library are not in practice independent for this issue ...
For this particular issue they are indeed independent. As said, I have proof of
concept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113887
--- Comment #4 from Jens Gustedt ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #2)
This is not about the question if the C library supports these types
as `uint128_t`. This is primarily to provide `printf` etc *interface*
support for the built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113887
--- Comment #3 from Jens Gustedt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> AFAIK glibc doesn't support %w128d etc., it would require full
> int128_t/uint128_t support, likely
> int_least128_t/uint_least128_t/int_fast128_t/uint_fast128_t,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113887
Bug ID: 113887
Summary: no support for %w128 length modifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113886
Bug ID: 113886
Summary: new C23 length specifier with confusing diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109284
Bug ID: 109284
Summary: __VA_OPT__ triggers internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
10 matches
Mail list logo