On Thu, 19 Dec 2024, Andrew Pinski wrote: > Maybe it is better to just use _BitInt instead of __int128. Yes the > number of targets that support _BitInt for C is less than __int128 but > in the future _BitInt will be more supported than __int128 especially > on 32bit targets. E.g. _BitInt(128) is supported on 32bit x86 while > __int128 is not.
Given the use of extern "C" in this header code, I think this target library may be built as C++ (where we don't support _BitInt). I'm not sure of the status of C++ P3140 (requiring std::int_least128_t), but if it goes in then we'll need lots of less-then-64-bit target maintainers (who mostly haven't defined their ABIs for _BitInt yet) to (work with ABI maintainers / other implementations to) define ABIs for __int128 as well (which applies even if those targets don't support COBOL but do still support C++). -- Joseph S. Myers josmy...@redhat.com
