128-bit long long?

[Richard B. Kreckel]

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/>