On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 7:24 AM Robert Seacord via Liaison
<liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I cannot think of any reasons why this paper would cause any C/C++ compatibility issues.

Aside from it meaning these C interfaces are mandatory in C++ but
optional in C. ;-)

This topic came up in WG14 as part of
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2889.htm and that
paper was rejected because of concerns from several implementers. One
of the concerns I recall was around implementations supporting very
wide pointer types, such as capability-based memory architectures.

~Aaron

>
> Thanks,
> rCs
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 6:17 AM Nina Dinka Ranns via Liaison <liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> We have a question from the author of P3248R0 Require [u]intptr_t :
>>
>> - If C++ requires [u]intptr_t with the proposed semantics (same as C), does SG22 have any concerns w.r.t. C++ compatibility with C on platforms C++ supports?
>>
>> Thoughts ?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Nina
>> _______________________________________________
>> Liaison mailing list
>> Liaison_at_[hidden]
>> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/liaison
>> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2024/05/1408.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> Liaison mailing list
> Liaison_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/liaison
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2024/05/1410.php