From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-467930-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 17708 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2014 12:18:50 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 17666 invoked by uid 48); 21 Nov 2014 12:18:46 -0000
From: "john at johnmaddock dot co.uk" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/43622] no C++ typeinfo for __float128
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 12:18:00 -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: john at johnmaddock dot co.uk
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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-hSi8wQNKGa@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: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg02402.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43622

--- Comment #26 from John Maddock <john at johnmaddock dot co.uk> ---
(In reply to joseph@codesourcery.com from comment #25)
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, john at johnmaddock dot co.uk wrote:
> 
> > While we're opening cans of worms.... intmax_t should clearly be __int128...
> > just saying!
> 
> Existing ABIs where intmax_t in libc is 64-bit are why __int128 is what I 
> call a sui generis extended type, not an integer type.

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...