On Tue, 12 Feb 2013, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Although __int128_t is technically not an extended integer type because we
> don't want to change intmax_t, it seems appropriate to me to give it the same
> semantics as an extended integer type apart from that one aspect.
>
> The only thing we weren't
Although __int128_t is technically not an extended integer type because
we don't want to change intmax_t, it seems appropriate to me to give it
the same semantics as an extended integer type apart from that one aspect.
The only thing we weren't implementing is support for numeric literals,
whi
