From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 10499 invoked from network); 31 May 2023 14:57:39 -0000
Received: from second.openwall.net (193.110.157.125)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 31 May 2023 14:57:39 -0000
Received: (qmail 15795 invoked by uid 550); 31 May 2023 14:57:37 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 15754 invoked from network); 31 May 2023 14:57:36 -0000
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 10:57:24 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: =?utf-8?B?SuKCkeKCmeKCmw==?= Gustedt <jens.gustedt@inria.fr>
Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com
Message-ID: <20230531145724.GF4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
References: <cover.1685536608.git.Jens.Gustedt@inria.fr>
 <1c8e850ed3190af39b9e3f501d79899d438e7292.1685536608.git.Jens.Gustedt@inria.fr>
 <20230531142743.GB4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20230531163643.2a382b4a@inria.fr>
 <20230531144128.GD4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20230531165545.29eb823f@inria.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20230531165545.29eb823f@inria.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [musl] [C23 128 bit 4/4] C23: implement proper support for
 int128_t and uint128_t

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 04:55:45PM +0200, Jₑₙₛ Gustedt wrote:
> Rich,
> 
> on Wed, 31 May 2023 10:41:29 -0400 you (Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>)
> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 04:36:43PM +0200, Jₑₙₛ Gustedt wrote:
> > > Rich,
> > > 
> > > on Wed, 31 May 2023 10:27:44 -0400 you (Rich Felker
> > > <dalias@libc.org>) wrote:
> > >   
> > > > Unless the rules in C23 changed,  
> > > 
> > > They did change, this is what this is all about.  
> > 
> > Can you cite that?
> 
> sure, almost by heart, since I wrote that ;-)
> 
>   … with the possible exceptions of signed bit-precise integer types
>   and of signed extended integer types that are wider than `long long`
>   and that are referred by the type definition for an exact width
>   integer type
> 
> > Because I don't see it. I still see that intmax_t
> > has to be at least as wide as all the intN_t.
> 
> I seems that you read that the wrong way around.

OK, so AIUI based on this exception it's permitted but not required to
offer int128_t.

Rich