On 7/4/2014 3:38 AM, Don wrote:
What is "the longest type supported by the native hardware"? I don't know what that means, and I don't think it even makes sense.
Most of the time, it is quite clear.
For example, Sparc has 128-bit quads, but they only have partial support. Effectively. they are emulated. Why on earth would you want to use an emulated type on some machines, but not on others?
Emulation is not native support.
Perhaps the intention was "the largest precision you can get for free, without sacrificing speed" then that's not clearly defined. On x86-32, that was indeed 80 bits. But on other systems it doesn't have an obvious answer. On x86-64 it's not that simple. Nor on PPC or Sparc.
Yes, there is some degree of subjectivity on some platforms. I don't see a good reason for hamstringing the compiler dev with legalese for Platform X with legalese that isn't quite the right thing to do for X.
I think the intention of the spec is clear, and the compiler implementor can be relied on to exercise good judgement.
