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 4DBBD38618A2; Sat,  7 Aug 2021 05:50:12 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4DBBD38618A2
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/79217] Feature request: high half of an integer multiplication
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2021 05:50:12 +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: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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-79217-4-vYm822VwS3@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-79217-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-79217-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2021 05:50:12 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D79217

--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to H. Peter Anvin from comment #5)
> b) it seems likely that getting __intN where N > CHAR_BIT*sizeof(uintmax_=
t)
> into a standard would be very hard, and thus would not be possible to
> standard-track (although it could be used as an implementation on gcc usi=
ng
> a header inline, of course.)

I saw a proposal for C23 (I think it was C23) for arbitrary bit size intege=
rs.=20
I don't know if that included big integers either.=