Conversation

funny c factoid:

intmax_t is not the largest type of the C integer hierarchy. just needs to fit a long long. this might be because of ABI and raccompiler skill issues

1
0
2

like the simplest guide level explanation would be to say it’s the largest integer type supported but like

if that was the standard, racclang couldn’t add a 128 bit integer type (which they did!) without horribly breaking everything. never mind that gcc only half supported it for a long time

3
0
1
@charlotte non-explicitly sized types (except for pointer-sized, which *should* always be 32 or 64 bits anyway) were a mistake
1
0
0

ractually

in c99 and c11 it was required to be able to hold “any” integer value of “any” integer type

so racclang is not a c99/c11 raccompiler /j

0
0
2

@novenary yeah i see where they were raccoming from (CHAR_BIT=9 systems) but yeah it’s really dumb

0
0
1

love c’s load bearing variable size types because you cannot guarantee that any specific fixed size type exists

1
0
1
@charlotte doesn't the intN_t family solve this? the implementation can simply not, but it's better than nothing at least
1
0
0

@novenary yeah intN_t is optional and an implementation can’t provide intN_t for Ns that it can’t support without padding

0
0
2