From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 1B5233858D38; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 10:36:33 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1B5233858D38 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1674642993; bh=ivzMvh+pkJUdPLt37GjXE2AyZMewuIl+7/KMl3XWxMU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=sX4D4+Von0rmNj5c0Ax1UudKYvqaO85k6O13C3Vg69eFj1Evr86h1Ov0zsLeLCIcN ojNX5nQP4PraSjOwtH4oJjBMyqhAR96xGtEypMNvOolPof2L5ZLxQVx3eVJiixJ4Am Z9Ra0LQEv8xWSiGwKIyZPvQhZMbn09YQsOytfKFE= From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/84764] Wrong warning "so large that it is unsigned" for __int128 constant Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 10:36:32 +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: 7.3.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: redi 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D84764 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Daniel Lundin from comment #3) > gcc behaves just like required too, since `__int128` ought to be one of t= he > extended integer types and it is signed. But it's not an extended integer type, see comment 2. I think that will change for C23, which allows intmax_t to be be defined to long long even if there are larger extended integer types. But in GCC today, there are no extended integer types.=