On Sat, 22 Aug 2020, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 13:13, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 10:52, Marc Glisse wrote:
is there a particular reason to handle only __int128 this way, and not all
the non-standard integer types? It looks like it would be a bit simpler to
avoid a special case.
I have no objection to doing it for all of them, it just wasn't
necessary to solve the immediate problem that the library now uses
__int128 even when integral<__int128> is false. (Hmm, or is size_t an
alias for __int20 on one arch, which would mean we do use it?)
Oh I remember why I didn't do that now. I did actually want to do it
that way initially.
The macros like __GLIBCXX_TYPE_INT_N_0 are not defined in strict mode,
so we have no generic way to name those types.
IIRC, those macros were introduced specifically to help libstdc++. If
libstdc++ wants them defined in different circumstances, it should be fine
to change the condition from "!flag_iso || int_n_data[i].bitsize ==
POINTER_SIZE" to whatever you need.
But now I understand why you did this, thanks.
--
Marc Glisse
