Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> writes: > On Sat, 6 Jun 2020, Mihai Preda wrote: > >> I would rather suggest to support intmax_t and uintmax_t. > > That's one possibility for C (and C++, although it is a bit more > painful there), but not one that everyone agrees with. I think the > majority in standard committees believes that those 2 types were a > mistake,
Any reference for such discussions? > in particular because they are 64 bits on platforms that now > have a 128 bit type, but cannot change intmax_t as that would break > the ABI. Isn't that exactly what happened to "long", long ago? Just like intmax_t, long was supposed to be the platform's largest supported integer type. Maybe we'll see a "long intmax_t" type when 128-bit types become more established ;-) Regards, /Niels -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid 368C6677. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. _______________________________________________ gmp-bugs mailing list gmp-bugs@gmplib.org https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-bugs
