From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-help-return-57569-listarch-gcc-help=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 124740 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2015 12:39:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-help.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 124679 invoked by uid 89); 26 Aug 2015 12:38:59 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-yk0-f176.google.com
Received: from mail-yk0-f176.google.com (HELO mail-yk0-f176.google.com) (209.85.160.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:38:56 +0000
Received: by ykdt205 with SMTP id t205so185895384ykd.1        for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 05:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.170.138.198 with SMTP id f189mr13570143ykc.22.1440592734650; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 05:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.214.136 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 05:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <93EE7806-1082-4A59-B5FB-6758E0532049@gmail.com>
References: <1B1111BE-E274-4C80-8189-22B78D77647A@gmail.com>	<CAH6eHdTumersYZtRi62uGVhjW+nxmCkXRC__bN1En2Q6shRa3w@mail.gmail.com>	<93EE7806-1082-4A59-B5FB-6758E0532049@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:39:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAH6eHdSvEGAVMnpH9US8Q9yY-s0xRyFmyko1p2SZsTLSH4ek-A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 128-bit integer - nonsensical documentation?
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
To: Kostas Savvidis <ksavvidis@gmail.com>
Cc: gcc-help <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00181.txt.bz2

On 26 August 2015 at 13:32, Kostas Savvidis wrote:
> I sense there is a consensus that
> 1) the 128bit integer is emulated emulated on 64-bit platforms, not avail=
able on 32-bit platforms, and is not native anywhere
> 2) the long long int is 64-bits everywhere so you can *NEVER* do what the=
 document seems to suggest one *MIGHT* be able to do =E2=80=94  input a 128=
-bit constant
>
> To me, this would justify rewriting the documentation.

I disagree, it is correct as written. There may be ports outside the
GCC tree where you can write a 128-bit constant (there may even be
some in the tree, I don't know).


> My personal lament is that i still cannot find out anywhere if it is avai=
lable on all 64-bit platforms or on intel only.

It's not Intel only, it works fine on powerpc64le, for example.