Constructor taking 64-bit integer missing on (some) Windows C++ compilers
marc.glisse at inria.fr
Tue Jun 9 08:21:31 UTC 2020
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020, Niels Möller wrote:
> Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at 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
> 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
>> 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".
More information about the gmp-bugs