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 A0B8A385829A; Tue,  6 Feb 2024 21:48:18 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A0B8A385829A
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1707256098;
	bh=6GVUbXwcc7NewXjrKHhTmhVlU8Ya8lWIfouB3g+S/EY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=QcztDtXtriHk13Ju2xEhJNldqrOtkATHU94+jmgWhnfL9R+REqyfIHs0QjafHSsYv
	 JvzgU6GkzSvgm1hsgMYWZI9zsp5TpTxZKjNQpWInDtoDi1WIKWtiB3E6KCLTqgUrqc
	 xvTejpP6FFIKSWDvEq2tNVvCXH8ZDwG1s4YCwZN4=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/87744] Some valid instantiations of
 linear_congruential_engine produce compiler errors when __int128 isn't
 available
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 21:48:17 +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: 7.3.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi 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-87744-4-sijCnqaWPN@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-87744-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-87744-4@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=3D87744

--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Why not just
>             __l._M_hi +=3D __builtin_uaddll_overflow(__l._M_lo, __c,
> &__l._M_lo);
> and similarly for subtraction?

No good reason - I'll change it.

> Is the reason for using the clang compat builtins instead of
> __builtin_{add,sub,mul}_overflow the compatibility with clang versions wh=
ich
> don't
> support these?

Again, no reason, I was just using the ones specific to the type because all
the types are fixed.

Thanks for the suggestions.=