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