From: user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) posted:   
      
   > MitchAlsup  writes:   
   > >   
   > >anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) posted:   
   > >   
   > >> Michael S  writes:   
   > >> >On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 09:24:20 GMT   
   > >> >anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote:   
   > >> >> Actually, with uint128_t you get pretty far, and _BitInt(bits) has   
   > >> >> been added in C23, which has good potential, but is not quite there.   
   > >> >   
   > >> >Yes, that what I wrote above.   
   > >> >As far as BGB is concerned, the big disadvantage is absence of support   
   > >> >by MSVC.   
   > >>   
   > >> Why would that be a disadvantage?  If MSVC does not do what he needs,   
   > >> there are other C compilers to choose from.   
   > >>   
   > >> >> Builtins for add-with-carry and intrinsics are somewhat disappointing.   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> - anton   
   > >> >   
   > >> >For me the most disappointing part is that different architectures   
   > >> >have different spellings.   
   > >>   
   > >> For intrinsics that's by design.  They are essentially a way to write   
   > >> assembly language instructions in Fortran or C.  And assembly language   
   > >> is compiler-specific.   
   > >   
   > >{Pedantic mode=ON}   
   > >Assembly language is ASSEMBLER specific.   
   >   
   > What I wanted to write was "And assembly language is   
   > architecture-specific".   
      
   I have worked on a single machine with several different ASM "compilers".   
   Believe me, one asm can be different than another asm.   
      
   But it is absolutely true that asm is architecture specific.   
      
   > It's the builtin function that are compiler-specific.   
   >   
   > - anton   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)