From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C12398240E for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 18:52:31 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 14C12398240E Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-417-gC_1vT9WNZCpdFx2PkMAjg-1; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 13:52:28 -0500 X-MC-Unique: gC_1vT9WNZCpdFx2PkMAjg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 618E59CDA0; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 18:52:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-112-11.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.11]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6174669FC; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 18:52:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 108IqN20061650 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 8 Jan 2021 19:52:24 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) id 108IqMgh061649; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 19:52:22 +0100 Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 19:52:22 +0100 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Jonathan Wakely Cc: David Edelsohn , Iain Sandoe , libstdc++ , GCC Patches , "CHIGOT, CLEMENT" Subject: Re: [PATCH, libstdc++] GLIBCXX_HAVE_INT64_T Message-ID: <20210108185222.GX725145@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20210106193746.GD725145@tucnak> <20210106214159.GF725145@tucnak> <20210106233937.GH725145@tucnak> <20210106234549.GA3748@tucnak> <20210108183703.GF9471@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210108183703.GF9471@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2021 18:52:32 -0000 On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 06:37:03PM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > This uses __INT64_TYPE__ if that's defined, and long long otherwise. I > think that should be equivalent in all practical cases (I can imagine > some strange target where __INT64_TYPE__ is defined by the compiler, > but int64_t isn't defined when the configure checks look for it, and > so the current code would use long long and with my patch would use > __INT64_TYPE__ which could be long ... but I think in practice that's > unlikely. It was probably more likely in older releases where the > configure test would have been done with -std=gnu++98 and so int64_t > might not have been declared by libc's , but if that was the > case then any ABI break it caused happened years ago. Does clang and ICC define __INT64_TYPE__ (at least on most architectures) and does it match what gcc defines it to? Jakub