This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 128-bit integer - nonsensical documentation?
- From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader at gmail dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc-help <gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:47:12 -0400
- Subject: Re: 128-bit integer - nonsensical documentation?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1B1111BE-E274-4C80-8189-22B78D77647A at gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdTumersYZtRi62uGVhjW+nxmCkXRC__bN1En2Q6shRa3w at mail dot gmail dot com> <93EE7806-1082-4A59-B5FB-6758E0532049 at gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdSvEGAVMnpH9US8Q9yY-s0xRyFmyko1p2SZsTLSH4ek-A at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: noloader at gmail dot com
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 August 2015 at 13:32, Kostas Savvidis wrote:
>> I sense there is a consensus that
>> 1) the 128bit integer is emulated emulated on 64-bit platforms, not available on 32-bit platforms, and is not native anywhere
>> 2) the long long int is 64-bits everywhere so you can *NEVER* do what the document seems to suggest one *MIGHT* be able to do â input a 128-bit constant
>>
>> To me, this would justify rewriting the documentation.
>
> I disagree, it is correct as written. There may be ports outside the
> GCC tree where you can write a 128-bit constant (there may even be
> some in the tree, I don't know).
As a somewhat out-of-reach example, Cray's had 128-bit registers since
the 1970s. So its about time GCC added them ;)
(I never worked on one of those machines. One of my college professors
told us about it after his tenure with the NSA).
Jeff