rjmccall added a comment.

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15120#337552, @hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:

> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15120#337384, @rjmccall wrote:
>
> > I think it's not unlikely that float128_t will see future standardization 
> > (as an optional extension, of course), and it would be strange for an 
> > operation between two types to not consistently yield the type of higher 
> > rank.
>
>
> It remains that the present standardization effort (as `_Float128`) does not 
> imbue the "interchange" type with inherently higher rank than `long double`. 
> In a parallel to the treatment of extended integer types, the "standard" type 
> has higher rank when the set of values are equivalent between the two. This 
> is consistent with the GCC implementation (online compiler: 
> http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/tM3PyGWC5WTWIdKP).


Do we have anyone involved in this standardization effort?  It seems like a 
really poor idea to having type ranking be target-dependent.

> > I could see an argument that we should not treat float128_t as a distinct 
> > type from long double on targets where they have the same implementation.  
> > That might avoid the need for special-case manglings.

> 

> 

> I would prefer this as well (insofar as it saves us from the common type 
> issue). As I have mentioned before, for `__float128` and `-mlong-double-128` 
> on x86-64, GCC ends up with an undesirable situation of treating the types as 
> distinct, but mangling them the same.


Does Clang currently support that option?

> In the TS, `_Float128` is always distinct from `long double`, which is 
> helpful for portability of `_Generic` expressions with both types. In the 
> end, it seems to come down to what sort of code people will write. If 
> overloads for both `__float128` and `long double` are the norm, then we will 
> need to consider the types distinct.


Makes sense.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

http://reviews.llvm.org/D15120



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to