__intN patch 3/5: main __int128 -> __intN conversion.

DJ Delorie dj@redhat.com
Thu Oct 2 19:14:00 GMT 2014


> > The test would only pass for msp430x (and fail for msp430, which is
> > the same target back-end).  Do I need to redo the big patch, or would
> > a separate one suffice?
> 
> Separate is fine.

Turns out it's mangled like this:

__int20 foo (__int20 a, unsigned __int20 b);

_Z3foou5int20u6uint20



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list