From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27287 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2015 12:47:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 27268 invoked by uid 89); 26 Aug 2015 12:47:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-io0-f180.google.com Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com (HELO mail-io0-f180.google.com) (209.85.223.180) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:47:14 +0000 Received: by iodt126 with SMTP id t126so16803250iod.2 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 05:47:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.14.73 with SMTP id 70mr3703554ioo.11.1440593232466; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 05:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.123.215 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 05:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: noloader@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: <1B1111BE-E274-4C80-8189-22B78D77647A@gmail.com> <93EE7806-1082-4A59-B5FB-6758E0532049@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:47:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 128-bit integer - nonsensical documentation? From: Jeffrey Walton To: Jonathan Wakely Cc: gcc-help Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00182.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely wr= ote: > 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 avai= lable on 32-bit platforms, and is not native anywhere >> 2) the long long int is 64-bits everywhere so you can *NEVER* do what th= e document seems to suggest one *MIGHT* be able to do =E2=80=94 input a 12= 8-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). As a somewhat out-of-reach example, Cray's had 128-bit registers since the 1970s. So its about time GCC added them ;) (I never worked on one of those machines. One of my college professors told us about it after his tenure with the NSA). Jeff