This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 128-bit long long?
- From: "Richard B. Kreckel" <kreckel at ginac dot de>
- To: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>, Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>, Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:35:16 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: 128-bit long long?
- Reply-to: <Richard dot Kreckel at ginac dot de>
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
>
> > I always wondered why C99 didn't define both int128_t and uint128_t in
> > <stdint.h>.
>
> However, according to 7.18.1.1, p3, intN_t and uintN_t are *all* optional.
Hmmm, I've always believed that the next sentence ("However, if an
implementation provides integer types with widths of 8, 16, 32 or 64 bits,
it shall define the corresponding typedef names") is to be construed as a
*requirement* of these types on machines where they make sense. In
particular this applies to x86 and x86_64, the two architectures this
thread was originally all about.
Regards
-richy.
--
Richard B. Kreckel
<http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/>