On Thu, May 30 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 07:08:45PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> Interesting, I was also puzzled for a moment. But notice that:
>>
>> int main ()
>> {
>> _Float128 x = 18446744073709551617.5f128;
>> _Float128 y = __builtin_roundf128 (x);
>> }
>>
>> behaves as expected... the difference is of course the suffix pegged to
>> the literal constant (see
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.1.0/gcc/Floating-Types.html).
>>
>> I would also expect GCC to use a larger type if a constant does not fit
>> into a double, but apparently that does not happen. I would have to
>> check but it is probably the right behavior according to the standard.
>
> 6.4.4.2/4: "An unsuffixed floating constant has type double." I don't
> think your suggestion would be okay?
Sorry if I was not clear but I was definitely not suggesting that we
change this (or anything). I wrote that I was also surprised but
believed that GCC was doing the correct thing.
Thanks for pointing out where exactly the standard says what has to be
done though.
Martin
