Live data from Hacker News

C23 Implications for C Libraries

htmlpreview.github.io

1–10 of 135 posts

Re: C23 Implications for C Libraries

#9
"Extended integer types may be wider than intmax_t". I'm sure there's a good reason for this, but it was introduced in C99, which says (in 7.8.1.5): "[intmax_t] designates a signed integer type capable of representing any value of any signed integer type".

That was already portable between 16 bit, 32 bit, 64 bit etc. Why is it that just because the compiler supports 128 bit or 256 bit integers that compiling in such a mode doesn't correspondingly update "[u]intmax_t"?

The linked page says they 'cannot be "extended integer types" in the sense of C17', but that printf() and scanf() should still support these?

Re: C23 Implications for C Libraries

#10
post #9

"Extended integer types may be wider than intmax_t". I'm sure there's a good reason for this, but it was introduced in C99, which says (in 7.8.1.5): "[intmax_t] designates a signed integer type capable of representing any value of any signed integer type". That was already portable between 16 bit, 32 bit, 64 bit etc. Why is it that just because the compiler supports 128 bit or 256 bit integers that compiling in such…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN