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

[Marc Glisse]

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
>> 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