From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 13800 invoked from network); 31 May 2023 16:30:33 -0000 Received: from second.openwall.net (193.110.157.125) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 31 May 2023 16:30:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 11689 invoked by uid 550); 31 May 2023 16:30:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 11638 invoked from network); 31 May 2023 16:30:28 -0000 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.ispras.ru 300F340737AB Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 19:30:16 +0300 (MSK) From: Alexander Monakov To: musl@lists.openwall.com cc: Rich Felker In-Reply-To: <20230531175628.168043d2@inria.fr> Message-ID: <84a7a59e-afe9-2b63-7039-25f9638cfb0b@ispras.ru> References: <1c8e850ed3190af39b9e3f501d79899d438e7292.1685536608.git.Jens.Gustedt@inria.fr> <20230531142743.GB4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20230531163643.2a382b4a@inria.fr> <20230531144128.GD4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20230531165545.29eb823f@inria.fr> <20230531145724.GF4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20230531170700.65bd9c11@inria.fr> <20230531151406.GG4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20230531173718.3d7d499f@inria.fr> <20230531154043.GH4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20230531175628.168043d2@inria.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323328-2109357454-1685550616=:21581" Subject: Re: [musl] [C23 128 bit 4/4] C23: implement proper support for int128_t and uint128_t This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323328-2109357454-1685550616=:21581 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Wed, 31 May 2023, Jā‚‘ā‚™ā‚› Gustedt wrote: > Again, this is not an extension but an optional feature, and this has > nothing of bleeding edge. This is present in compilers since ages, and > everybody is using their specific ways to go around the restrictions > of previous C standards. So, to make sure, by compiler support do you mean __int128 here? It is not supported on 32-bit platforms neither by GCC nor by LLVM. On 64-bit platforms it is piggy-backing on double-word operations support required for implementing 64-bit 'long long' on 32-bit platforms. Alexander --8323328-2109357454-1685550616=:21581--