Rich, on Tue, 20 Sep 2022 10:15:18 -0400 you (Rich Felker ) wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 04:08:03PM +0200, Jₑₙₛ Gustedt wrote: > > Rich, > > > > on Tue, 20 Sep 2022 09:55:54 -0400 you (Rich Felker > > ) wrote: > > > > > In general, offering non-portable functionality that applications > > > can't already generally expect to have on popular systems, with > > > no way to probe for availability, does not seem useful, and it's > > > even less useful when there's a trivial portable way to do the > > > same thing. > > > > Unfortunately, for the the bit-precise types there isn't. The > > supported types may be wider than `long long` (128 and even 256 will > > be common values that will probably widely supported) and then the > > task of printing them gets as nasty as for today's `__int128`. My > > hope was really to get all of these done for once, such that our > > users may use their creativity to do more useful stuff. > > Well how are programmers supposed to probe what's available, and what > are they supposed to do as fallback when support is not available? And > what is the upper limit? There is a feature test macro for the maximum width of bit-precise integers, `BITINT_MAXWIDTH`. It is guaranteed to be at least `ULLONG_WIDTH` but can (and will) be larger on many platforms. Jₑₙₛ -- :: INRIA Nancy Grand Est ::: Camus ::::::: ICube/ICPS ::: :: :::::::::::::::::::::: gsm France : +33 651400183 :: :: ::::::::::::::: gsm international : +49 15737185122 :: :: http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::