https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84764
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Lundin ---
Call it what you will, either way there is nothing here that's "so large that
it is unsigned". The main point is that the diagnostic message is wrong.
typeof(18446744073709551615) x = -1;
Gives a 128 bit in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84764
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Also, for it to become an extended integer type, it would be necessary to
define integer constant suffixes and implement printf / scanf support in
the library, because is now required to p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84764
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Daniel Lundin from comment #3)
> gcc behaves just like required too, since `__int128` ought to be one of the
> extended integer types and it is signed.
But it's not an extended integer type, s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84764
Daniel Lundin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.lundin.mail at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84764
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
__int128 is not an extended integer type in the C sense. The main reason is
because intmax_t is not defined as __int128.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84764
--- Comment #1 from Pascal Cuoq ---
I meant "the warning implies that the constant is typed as unsigned long
long...".
