From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 987C63857346; Fri, 26 May 2023 17:11:28 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 987C63857346
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1685121088;
	bh=+FNcCaOsQyEvOD3gOQjzRnVKHhMvGIMnZjF2Sij1hAk=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=uI1ZqD6Jwful6lF+S3vcBapP+Ir4d2uEw7+tcNzPdw8tnBxonynFg/1sfBvTgf34N
	 bUkjBGTd8ynzn5gR61joSPPqNV/bIN/g+NQSKX6wS3wkGy+IezyXJJAv4VYGBuLxWI
	 nk3hXxXg37dgODzS/gQNfcTTcRrpmSAQC64oxZzs=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/102989] Implement C2x's n2763 (_BitInt)
Date: Fri, 26 May 2023 17:11:27 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-102989-4-b0UQfTpbEK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-102989-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-102989-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102989

--- Comment #52 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> (In reply to joseph@codesourcery.com from comment #13)
> > https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/i386-ABI/-/issues/5 to request such an AB=
I=20
> > for 32-bit x86.  I don't know if there are other psABIs with public iss=
ue=20
> > trackers where such issues can be filed (but we'll need some sensible=20
> > default anyway for architectures where we can't get an ABI properly=20
> > specified in an upstream-maintained ABI document).
>=20
> ia32 psABI will follow x86-64 psABI.

Is it a good idea to use 64-bit limbs and 64-bit alignment for the ia32 ABI?
I mean, it is fine to use that _BitInt(N) for N 33..64 has
size/alignment/passing of long long, but wonder if for N > 64 the ABI shoul=
dn't
use 32-bit limbs, 32-bit alignments and passing as struct containing the 32=
-bit
limbs.=