On Tue, 9 Jun 2020, Niels Möller wrote:
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?
No, I didn't take notes, and not all discussions are public. A quick
search gives one paper presented to the C committee on the topic
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2303.pdf
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.
At least they had the foresight to call it "long" and not "longest".
--
Marc Glisse
_______________________________________________
gmp-bugs mailing list
gmp-bugs@gmplib.org
https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-bugs
