On Mon, 8 Jun 2020, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Couldn't the C interface *optionally* support more than C89?
I think the policy has been to have one uniform interface, and requiring C99 for GMP is likely to happen. I am generally in favor of optional support for __int128, which wouldn't be available everywhere, but more people need convincing ;-)
But isn't the support for 128-bit integers incomplete (i.e. not all operations required by ISO C for an integer type are implemented)?
I believe there is a chicken and egg problem. If they implement everything, they have to bump intmax_t.
Anyway you don't introduce a new large builtin integer type everyday. ABI breakages are annoying, but when they are rare, this could be acceptable. Moreover, I suspect that very few libraries/applications would be affected by a change of (u)intmax_t. And these are those that would benefit from such a change.
We don't get to pick what intmax_t refers to. I am also in favor of breaking ABIs once in a while to fix some mistakes or modernize some things, but that's not how redhat (for instance) sees things.
-- Marc Glisse _______________________________________________ gmp-bugs mailing list gmp-bugs@gmplib.org https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-bugs
