On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > You mean that thread? > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg00064.html > and > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg00079.html
Yes, the whole thread (with particular reference to my comments about what should be kept target-dependent). > For the 128-bit integers there is just one type __int128 and unsigned variant > is unsigned __int128, whereas for the 24-bit types are are two types: __int24 > for signed and __uint24 for unsigned flavor. > > Is there an advantage of one approach over the other? signed and unsigned __int128 is more consistent with standard C types, but harder to implement within a back end because it involves a new keyword. Two different type names can be implemented purely within your back end without needing generic work elsewhere first to make that possible, but users might expect to be able to use unsigned __int24 - or _Complex __int24 - and find that won't work if you use the built-in typedef approach. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
