On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> wrote:

> * Dan Gohman <sunfish@mozilla.com> [2016-01-25 21:03:54 -0800]:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> wrote:
> > > * Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> [2016-01-25 16:00:05 -0500]:
> > > >
> > > > I'm pretty sure int64_t is long on all LP64 targets we support. Are
> > > > there others that differ?
> > >
> >
> > I'm working on an architecture which does, though there's no musl support
> > for it currently.
> >
>
> in gcc stdint.h only depends on libc/os and sizeof(long),
> not on architecture.
>
> (e.g. openbsd uses long long, glibc uses long consistently
> for all LP64 arch abis.)
>

I've been assuming that, in the absence of compatibility constraints (for
example on a new architecture), it would be reasonable for hypothetical new
musl, glibc, or newlib ports to arrange to be ABI compatible at the level
of a freestanding implementation (in the C standard sense), which would
include <stdint.h>. Is this an incorrect assumption, from your perspective?

Dan