On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There is already support for __int128_t & __uint128_t but not yet
> for GCC's __int128.
>
> This patch add support for it and a couple of test cases.
>
> Note: it's slightly more tricky that it look because contrary to
> '__int128_t', '__int128' is not an exact type (it can still receive
> the 'unsigned' or 'signed' specifier).
>
> @@ -1496,6 +1504,8 @@ static struct token *declaration_specifiers(struct token *token, struct decl_sta
> }
> seen |= s->op->set;
> class += s->op->class;
> + if (s->op->set & Set_Int128)
> + size = 2;
> if (s->op->type & KW_SHORT) {
> size = -1;
> } else if (s->op->type & KW_LONG && size++) {
This patch is already applied in sparse-next.
But I have a question regarding the "size = 2;" Is the number 2 a magic
number?
Chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
