Rich, on Wed, 31 May 2023 10:41:29 -0400 you (Rich Felker ) 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 > > ) 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. > And AIUI this is the whole reason _BitInt was added -- to give > implementations the freedom to add types larger than intmax_t. Nope, see my other mail. Thanks Jₑₙₛ -- :: ICube :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: deputy director :: :: Université de Strasbourg :::::::::::::::::::::: ICPS :: :: INRIA Nancy Grand Est :::::::::::::::::::::::: Camus :: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ☎ +33 368854536 :: :: https://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::