4 ms·
Exactly, and the way "intmax_t" was previously defined in C99 implied that you needed to break that ABI compatibility if you introduced larger integer types.
by avar 4y ago
Exactly, and the way "intmax_t" was previously defined in C99 implied that you needed to break that ABI compatibility if you introduced larger integer types.
- gpderetta 4y agoAre you saying that the standard should attempt to impose requirements to non-conforming compiler modes? How would that even work?
- avar 4y agoI'm saying that if you wrote conforming C99 code that made the assumptions C99 guaranteed your code will be subtly broken by C23. Whether that was a worthwhile trade-off is another matter.
- gpderetta 4y agoTo be fair C23 is simply standardising the status quo. There is no point in having a standard if nobody implements it.