On 10/02/2014 02:00 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Ah, good point. In which case I don't see what this code is trying to
accomplish relative to falling through to the "prefer the unsigned one"
code below. Shall we just remove it?
I don't know for sure. There was __int128 code there, I replaced it
with the "same" code, so as to avoid any functional differences on
mainstream targets.
I imagine the code is there for when __int128 is the same size as some
other types besides long long.
But if __int128 happened to be the same size as long the code was wrong.
Well, I suppose it could be there to prefer __int128 to
intTI_type_node. I guess let's move the intN handling below the code
for (u)long and add support for unsigned extended integers like there is
for both long and long long.
Jason
