> I think using the macros for type sizes is fine, and float / vector / > complex types are completely irrelevant to this (so standard_type_bitsize > should maybe be standard_integer_type_bitsize).
Whew. Am I missing any in the previous code snippet (char, short, int, long, long long) ? Those were the ones documented in tm.texi. > No, the (TImode, __int128) pair should be handled the same way as all the > other __intN types rather than special-cased (of course you should ensure > the patch does not end up changing the set of configurations for which > __int128 is available). So if a target happened to set "long long" to TImode, it wouldn't have __int128 any more? I'm wondering if any ILP64 target would be affected (x86-64 isn't, I don't think any others are).
