http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
--- Comment #10 from brian m. carlson
2011-06-30 21:47:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> What do you mean by standards mode?
> It's clearly documented in the manual that -std=c99 does NOT mean non-standard
> extensions are rejected, for that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
--- Comment #8 from brian m. carlson
2011-06-30 20:22:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> By (directly) using an identifier starting with two underscores you are
> leaving
> the territory of the C standard.
I don't agree. The footnote to the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
--- Comment #7 from brian m. carlson
2011-06-30 20:16:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > suppose the only appropriate behavior is not to provide any integer types
> > larger
> > than intmax_t with -std=c99.
>
> Us
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
--- Comment #3 from brian m. carlson
2011-06-30 18:12:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> sizeof(intmax_t) is fixed by various LP64 ABIs and cannot be changed
That does sound potentially problematic. I don't see how that solves the
standard c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
brian m. carlson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24647|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
Summary: on amd64, sizeof(__int128_t) > sizeof(intmax_t)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassi
