https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79217
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> I saw a proposal for C23 (I think it was C23) for arbitrary bit size
> integers. I don't know if that included big integers either.
It does and _BitInt(128) is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79217
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to H. Peter Anvin from comment #5)
> b) it seems likely that getting __intN where N > CHAR_BIT*sizeof(uintmax_t)
> into a standard would be very hard, and thus would not be possible to
> standard-tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79217
--- Comment #5 from H. Peter Anvin ---
As noted on bug 79219 there are a few issues with simply relying on __int128,
even if 32 bits is the natural "limb" size on a 32-bit architecture.
a) it requires algorithms to be implemented using lengthy (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79217
--- Comment #4 from H. Peter Anvin ---
My apologies for the three attachments; I incorrectly attached them to the
wrong bug report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79217
--- Comment #3 from H. Peter Anvin ---
Created attachment 40600
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40600&action=edit
Assembly output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79217
--- Comment #2 from H. Peter Anvin ---
Created attachment 40599
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40599&action=edit
Preprocessor output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79217
--- Comment #1 from H. Peter Anvin ---
Created attachment 40598
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40598&action=edit
Source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79217
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
