>> Why not intmax_t / uintmax_t instead of long long / unsigned long long? > I believe every platform that has intmax_t also has long long, but the > converse is not true.
Do you have an example of such a platform? > Some platforms provide types larger that intmax_t (intmax_t is part of the > ABI, and they couldn't change it when they added a longer type, see for > instance __int128 in gcc). Well according to PR#49595, __int128 is not even an extended integer type but something strange which can hold an integer of 128 bits. Since the C standard doesn't apply (since it is not an extended nor standard integer tyoe) and since GCC Manual doesn't specify what operations are valid and what are not, I am not even sure what a+b does when a and b are __int128 :) > intmax_t started from a good intention, but it seems fairly useless in > practice. I rarely used long long but used intmax_t quite often. I found "long long" quite useless: either you need 64 bits arithmetic, and you should use int64_t (or its friends) to have the optimal type, or you need the type which can fit them all, and you should use intmax_t. -- Patrick _______________________________________________ gmp-devel mailing list gmp-devel@gmplib.org http://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-devel