On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Bastien ROUCARIES
wrote:
> n Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> On 09/11/11 08:14, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>>> gcc has it : http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fint128.html
>>> (at least for 64bits)
>>
>> I'd be leery of any attempt to def
n Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 09/11/11 08:14, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>> gcc has it : http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fint128.html
>> (at least for 64bits)
>
> I'd be leery of any attempt to define a system type wider than
> intmax_t.
For sure but we could ov
On 09/11/11 08:14, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> gcc has it : http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fint128.html
> (at least for 64bits)
I'd be leery of any attempt to define a system type wider than
intmax_t. Too many things will break. It might be OK to use
__int128 for specialized internal
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>> Did you know
>> that recent mscv support a limited int128 (named __int128) under
>> 64bits (limited because it does not support divide)? It is quite
>> interesting in order to implement uid_t, gid because every user
Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> Did you know
> that recent mscv support a limited int128 (named __int128) under
> 64bits (limited because it does not support divide)? It is quite
> interesting in order to implement uid_t, gid because every user of a
> microsoft system is guranted to be mapped in a 128bi
