On Nov 29, 2012, at 8:23 PM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2012, at 4:23 PM, Stephen Canon <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. > > I agree, it's a great goal, but it will be a massive undertaking. In the meantime, if we're really worried about conformance, here perhaps -std=c99,c11,c++11, etc should disable __[u]int128_t? (Though this would likely cause a hassle for some users). - Steve _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
