On Nov 21, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Stephen Canon <[email protected]> wrote: > >> - On targets that support i128 (LP64 targets), literals that are too >> large to fit into [unsigned] long long become [unsigned] i128, as allowed by >> the paragraphs on "extended integer types" in the C and C++ standards. We >> issue a warning in such cases because clang will differ from GCC. > > This seems to violate the C requirement that intmax_t is able to > represent any signed integer value, etc. If that requirement is violated, it is violated by the existence of __int128_t, not by allowing literals of that type. - Steve _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
