This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: proposal to make SIZE_TYPE more flexible
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:37:00 +0000
- Subject: Re: proposal to make SIZE_TYPE more flexible
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <201310300422 dot r9U4M6Mx002568 at greed dot delorie dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1310301535400 dot 22878 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <201310301917 dot r9UJHxg7028662 at greed dot delorie dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1310302035190 dot 29408 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <201310302219 dot r9UMJg9e001309 at greed dot delorie dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1310302249250 dot 29408 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <201311140158 dot rAE1wCkg006136 at greed dot delorie dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311141318300 dot 21407 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <201311141812 dot rAEICMvn019947 at greed dot delorie dot com>
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > Instead of a target-independent __int128 keyword, there would be a set
> > (possibly empty) of __intN keywords, determined by a target hook.
>
> Or *-modes.def ?
That would be one possibility - if the idea is to define __intN for all
integer modes not matching a standard type (and passing
targetm.scalar_mode_supported_p), I advise posting details of what effect
this would have for all targets so we can see how many such types would
get added.
(I don't advise having __intN when there are matching standard integer
types as that would introduce unnecessary complications regarding whether
__intN is the same type, or a distinct one needing its own name mangling
and rank for promotion. Draft TS 18661-3 does have _Float32 etc. as
always distinct types from float etc., but I don't see any use for that
for integer types for now.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com