On 4 Jul 2014 10:40, "Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d" < [email protected]> wrote: > > On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 14:26:51 UTC, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: >> >> It's also a handy coincidence that for many platforms the targets >> largest supported FP and *double* type happen to be the same too. > > > Out of curiosity, how is C "long double" interpreted on those platforms? Just doesn't exist, or is interpreted as the same as double? >
Same as double. > What's concerning me here is that you've posted at least one example platform where the C long double is _not_ the same as the largest FP type. > > Now, it makes sense to me that the spec _could_ be, "real == largest hardware-supported FP type", and it makes sense that the spec could be, "real == C long double for the platform". But it seems quite apparent that it can't mean both, and that there needs to be a firm decision about which we want it to be. It's whatever you configure it to be. Essentially, I want to give porters maximum flexibility on this. Iain.
