On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > > (yes, that's you cue. :) For acceptance, IMHO better get it > > working universally by open-coding the implementation without > > requiring --enable-* options. > > Making something involving new types - and so ABI impact - universal > without actually agreeing the ABI for each target with appropriate ABI > maintainers or interest groups for that target is not a good idea. It > leads to ABI incompatibility with other compilers, and to inefficient and > poorly specified ABIs that are "whatever GCC happens to implement if you > don't think about it" like we have on several targets for complex > types....
I'd hope ABI issues would be solved trivially by mapping to the same-sized integer type, the one ISTR you mentioned would be a good idea to keep before lowering the operations ;) but I guess I see your point. brgds, H-P
