intmax_t is a dumb idea. Conceptually intmax_t is a generic type of the form intmax_t<T>. Since C does not have generics, the T is chosen by the compiler durin

intmax_t is a dumb idea. Conceptually intmax_t is a generic type of the form intmax_t<T>. Since C does not have generics, the T is chosen by the compiler during compile time. But this means that the first time you compile any shared library with an intmax_t parameter or return value in one of its functions, you have permanently baked in the type parameter T to whatever the compiler chose it to be at that moment in time. You cannot retroactively change intmax_t even if you change the symbols, because intmax_t runs into the same problem any generics system does, you cannot retroactively add instantiations for future types that were not explicitly compiled into the dynamic library. Even if C gets generics and intmax_t would become obsolete either way, because you don't need intmax_t<T>, you can just have T. intmax_t is only interesting for choosing the T and even then it is only interesting inside function implementations and never in their signatures. So my conclusion is that intmax_t was a failed attempt at trying to be "clever" with the idea of introducing generics without introducing generics. This is an idea that is so doomed that anyone trying to rescue it, didn't really understand the problem with intmax_t.