On Nov 29, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Generally, we still need to handle Eli's observation that the C and C++ > extended integer type rules require us to make intmax_t be __int128 if we're > going to allow literals to be of type __int128. I'm inclined to say we should > bite the bullet here, and treat __int128 as a proper extended integer type > (and thus change intmax_t, preprocessor constant expressions, and so on). Any > objections? In the long run, I would very much like for intmax_t to be 128-bits where we can do so, but it's a *major* undertaking. In particular, it requires considerable platform library support; off the top of my head: • libc needs to be able to printf/scanf intmax_t via SCN*MAX / PRI*MAX, and needs to support strtoimax, etc. • libc needs to support imaxdiv and imaxabs. This will cause a decent amount of binary-compatibility headaches. It's a goal worth aiming for, but it's a good ways off still. - Steve _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
