From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <joseph_myers@mentor.com>
Received: from esa2.mentor.iphmx.com (esa2.mentor.iphmx.com [68.232.141.98])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12F8C3858C74
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 20:44:23 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 12F8C3858C74
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none)
 header.from=codesourcery.com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mentor.com
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.93,230,1654588800"; d="scan'208";a="81159470"
Received: from orw-gwy-02-in.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.167])
 by esa2.mentor.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 11 Aug 2022 12:44:22 -0800
IronPort-SDR: OiOPaxrh3OnDCf8PuB9i+olNG23eu4Lx9IeQTu4vKrG5/fJHO6CIgJuzDGQVJ9u+Xmu7feTEz/
 iD1uBna7Hgkj0WREMZR9016YcmZHOxAae/v88ENDFfWl6fg1Tt00GqbH8MSWniL4BAXbkaWHAP
 EOVu5v2bp9h4+F4Dnd/gdTXoKhVTYgHIDW5+NEL+UPXNzEuwASMAUs9RWQ5SnDRW3+0eUkVVrF
 d8nes0UxwVs5BqrDuv4/Pg9X3bXWlRQAWgusHCQTPengbgBAR70l6JlYP9ZS3CHYQu4x7AraYS
 /pY=
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 20:44:17 +0000
From: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
X-X-Sender: jsm28@digraph.polyomino.org.uk
To: Michael Meissner <meissner@linux.ibm.com>
CC: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>, Peter Bergner
 <bergner@linux.ibm.com>, <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, David Edelsohn
 <dje.gcc@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] IEEE 128-bit built-in overload support.
In-Reply-To: <YvVgIId0UAPaORXB@toto.the-meissners.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2208112043400.90368@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
References: <YuIUBVkLjqjYMZhp@toto.the-meissners.org>
 <20220805181905.GQ25951@gate.crashing.org>
 <YvNO36tDtxwXbels@toto.the-meissners.org>
 <20220810170316.GZ25951@gate.crashing.org>
 <YvVgIId0UAPaORXB@toto.the-meissners.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Originating-IP: [137.202.0.90]
X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-10.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.10) To
 svr-ies-mbx-10.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.10)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3111.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,
 SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) 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 <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 20:44:25 -0000

On Thu, 11 Aug 2022, Michael Meissner via Gcc-patches wrote:

> In looking at it, I now believe that the type for _Float128 and __float128
> should always be the same within the compiler.  Whether we would continue to
> use the same type for long double and _Float128/__float128 remains to be seen.

long double and _Float128 must always be different types; that's how it's 
defined in C23.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com