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 5974D385734C; Tue, 16 May 2023 18:49:10 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5974D385734C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1684262950;
	bh=kc8rVSCRO7X5iZwI51YIN9v0aWUV9e/Jp1W/K5A1O+U=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=BH0M0aMEyFJVRnlyEpd2IGZX5D5hhgxVBl5Q0W3F6mJllfrq93AiRWnnfHiQf7+Yl
	 XA0gmkWUcweJHSShEAuKKfDSdxKezZ6i+l3fQDipDRm3Y4wMsrM4JDvgnhPj2vaXos
	 JY8wkbbj5R2WPzxElVu/icoOgyZVYho0ooMNDnAk=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/43622] Incomplete C++ library support for __float128
Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 18:49:09 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-43622-4-6g4R4bdWHA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-43622-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-43622-4@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=3D43622

--- Comment #30 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to John Maddock from comment #26)
> (In reply to joseph@codesourcery.com from comment #25)
> > On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, john at johnmaddock dot co.uk wrote:
> >=20
> > > While we're opening cans of worms.... intmax_t should clearly be __in=
t128...
> > > just saying!
> >=20
> > Existing ABIs where intmax_t in libc is 64-bit are why __int128 is what=
 I=20
> > call a sui generis extended type, not an integer type.
>=20
> So it's an integer that's not an integer?  I'm sorry but that's just
> nonesense.  Of course I realise that ABI issues may trump other concerns,
> but please call a spade a spade!  In any case this is a glibc issue and
> we're off topic here...

With changes to the definition of intmax_t in C2x (and C++23) that problem =
is
gone. __int128 can be an extended integer type, and intmax_t doesn't need to
change, so there's no ABI problem. Order is restored to the galaxy.=