On 17 Aug 2026 16:11, Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals wrote:
> Normally this mailing list is for proposals, and people get a P number
> for their document.
>
> On this occasion though, rather than putting forward a proposal, I am
> making a demand, and my document shall therefore get a D number.
>
> There has been a gaping hole in the Standard for decades now. We have
> uintptr_t for storing a data pointer as an integer, but we don't have
> uintfptr_t to store a code pointer as an integer.
>
> For decades, people have been using uintptr_t in scenarios where they
> really needed uintfptr_t. This is an obscenity which needs to be
> corrected, especially given the advent of the new "-m32df" ABI for the
> GNU compiler.

This is the first time I hear about a "-m32df" ABI and Google search
doesn't produce anything about it. If such a thing exists, it doesn't
look like anything tangible (yet). The ABI has to become formally
defined and popular enough (i.e. considered reasonably successful)
before making language changes that may benefit it.

Another note is that the previous attempt in this area, the x32 ABI, is
pretty much dead at this point. Which, I think, is a net good thing as
it just makes life easier for programmers while not losing practically
anything.

> Therefore I demand the addition of uintfptr_t to the language.

I don't think this is a place to demand anything.