Constructor taking 64-bit integer missing on (some) Windows C++ compilers

Niels Möller nisse at
Tue Jun 9 05:18:39 UTC 2020

Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at> 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 ;-)


Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid 368C6677.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.

More information about the gmp-bugs mailing list