https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124799
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> --- > --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > I don't see how that commit could affect it, as there are no extended integer > types involved in that test. But tr1::pow does use __gnu_cxx::__promote which > uses std::__is_integer, which does seem related. But I don't see how anything > would have changed for int, it should only have affected __int128. Right, which might explain why it only affects 32-bit x86. I'd noticed that for +#if defined __STRICT_ANSI__ && defined __SIZEOF_INT128__ + , signed __int128 __STRICT_ANSI__ isn't defined, but __SIZEOF_INT128__ is. I haven't found why, yet, but am on vacation right now and will soon be travelling.
