On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 12:47, Timur Doumler <cpp_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> On 29 Mar 2023, at 12:48, Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 10:16, Timur Doumler <cpp_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Johathan,
>>
>> Do I understand it correctly that the primary motivation for this change
>> in C23 and C++23 was that changing uintmax_t would be an ABI break, which
>> is deemed unacceptable for the major compiler vendors?
>>
>
> Please stop framing opposition to ABI breaks to sound like a plot by evil
> vendors.
>
>
> Wait, what? Where in my email above did I do any of that?
>

"Deemed unacceptable for the major compiler vendors" certainly sounds like
it's just a decision that the vendors make, apologies if that isn't what
you meant. It usually *is* what people mean when they talk about opposition
to ABI breaks.



> I asked about what the motivation was for the change in C23 and C++23, and
> whether that is an issue for compiler vendors. Where did I frame anything
> as a "plot" and where did I say that vendors are "evil"?
>
> I have literally no horse in this race, I was just trying to understand
> the motivation, I honestly didn't expect to be met with such aggression.
>
> Timur
>
>