Re: 128-bit integer - nonsensical documentation?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 128-bit integer - nonsensical documentation?
From: Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:51:52 +0200 (CEST)
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
Cc: gcc-help <gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <CAH8yC8m4WFY_TWDFKqaWYXT5NhF5=3YVPoV0Pin6m-7aYL0=7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: gcc-help <gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015, Jeffrey Walton wrote:

Is there a way to detect the presence or availability of __int128 via
preprocessor macros?


__SIZEOF_INT128__

--
Marc Glisse

References:
- 128-bit integer - nonsensical documentation?
  - From: Kostas Savvidis
- Re: 128-bit integer - nonsensical documentation?
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: 128-bit integer - nonsensical documentation?
  - From: Jeffrey Walton

Prev by Date: Re: 128-bit integer - nonsensical documentation?
Next by Date: Re: 128-bit integer - nonsensical documentation?
Previous by thread: Re: 128-bit integer - nonsensical documentation?
Next by thread: Use BMI2 intrisic without enabling the BMI2 target for the whole translation unit
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux C Programming] [Linux Kernel] [eCos] [Fedora Development] [Fedora Announce] [Autoconf] [The DWARVES Debugging Tools] [Yosemite Campsites] [Yosemite News] [Linux GCC]

Powered by Linux