On Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 12:27 Marcin Jaczewski via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> czw., 30 mar 2023 o 11:26 Alejandro Colomar via Std-Proposals
> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/30/23 10:58, David Brown via Std-Proposals wrote:
> > > On 29/03/2023 17:18, Arthur O'Dwyer via Std-Proposals wrote:
> > >
> > >> A new `uintmax_extended_t` (or whatever) can communicate properly from
> > >> the get-go: "Hey! This type will change in the future! Don't build it
> > >> into your APIs!"
> > >> But then, if you aren't using this type in APIs, then where /*are*/
> you
> > >> using it, and why does it need to exist in the standard library at
> all?
> > >>
> > > That, I think, is the key point - /why/ would you want a "maximum size
> > > integer type" ?
> >
> > For example to printf(3) an off_t variable.
> > Or to write a [[gnu::always_inline]] function that accepts any integer.
> > Or to write a type-generic macro that handles any integer.
> >
> > The addition of functions that handle [u]intmax_t was the design mistake.
> > If they had been added as macros, we wouldn't be discussing ABI issues,
> > because macros don't have ABI. Of course, the problem is that
> _Generic(3)
> > was only added in C11, but intmax_t was added in C99, so they had to do
> it
> > as functions. History sucks.
> >
>
> No, this would change nothing, if it was macro, you still could put it
> on some API and then worry about ABI break.
> Usage of this causes risk of ABI break, not how it was defined.
>

I already mentioned this on this thread (but maybe I sent the mail from an
incorrect account and didn't reach the list): In the Linux man-pages page
for _Generic(3), I wrote a proof of concept of how to implement imaxabs(3)
and similar calls as macros, so that no traces of
intmax_t are left in any ABI:

<https://manpages.debian.org/testing/manpages-dev/_Generic.3.en.html>

The actual calls will be made to functions of fundamental types.

That would require modifying the standard to allow these calls to be
implemented as macros only, with no real function of that name, but I think
that shouldn't be a big deal. Implementations could keep a compat symbol
for previous programs that called the function.

-- 
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>