This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c/49595] on amd64, sizeof(__int128_t) > sizeof(intmax_t)
- From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:29:06 +0000
- Subject: [Bug c/49595] on amd64, sizeof(__int128_t) > sizeof(intmax_t)
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-49595-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49595
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-06-30 18:29:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Since the standard specifies intmax_t in terms of a "signed integer type", it
> therefore includes any implementation-defined extended signed integer types,
Yes.
> including __int128_t.
You're assuming __int128 is an implementation-defined extended integer type.
If GCC chooses to call __int128 some other type that doesn't fall under the C99
definition of "implementation defined integer type" then intmax_t doesn't have
to be able to represent its values.
Of course this is cheating by playing wordgames, but sizeof(intmax_t) can't
change and people want to be able to use __int128