This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: long long long
- To: Mike Stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- Subject: Re: long long long
- From: Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>
- Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 16:07:44 +0200
- CC: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, tej at melbpc dot org dot au
- Organization: Moene Computational Physics, Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
- References: <200009230050.RAA14552@kankakee.wrs.com>
Mike Stump wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 10:12:17 +1100
> > From: Tim Josling <tej@melbpc.org.au>
> > My COBOL compiler will need a 128 bit data type to support 31 digit
> > decimal arithmetic which is required in the new cobol standard. A
> > couple of questions: is it technically feasible to support this in
> > GCC, similar to the way long long (64 bit) is supported?
> Unelss your machine has the actual instructions, or your code is
> exceedingly tiny to not blow out a cache, I do wonder if there would
> be much of a speed difference in using a traditional C library for
> such things. If there isn't, why bother with builtin types? Also, I
> thought most COBOL systems didn't bother with actual compilation, but
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> rather just targeted a cobol vm, and did it that way. If you do it
> that way, the cost of using a more traditional approach would matter
> even less.
Ummmm, why do you think there's an EDITPC instruction on the VAX ?
[ Yes, I know, this has little to do with TImode support ]
--
Toon Moene - mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
GNU Fortran 95: http://g95.sourceforge.net/ (under construction)