Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: do { quit; } else { }
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2025 21:03:25 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <vthmst$26ud$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <86ecy5fjin.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <20250406190321.000001dc@yahoo.com> <86plhodtsw.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <20250407210248.00006457@yahoo.com> <vt15lq$bjs0$3@dont-email.me>
 <vt2lp6$1qtjd$1@dont-email.me> <vt31m5$2513i$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt3d4g$2djqe$1@dont-email.me> <vt3iqh$2ka99$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt5fed$ccri$1@dont-email.me> <vt5js2$g1t7$1@dont-email.me>
 <20250409142303.00004645@yahoo.com> <87ikndqabc.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <20250410115501.000037a5@yahoo.com> <vt8ei8$2vn84$1@dont-email.me>
 <20250410080629.532@kylheku.com> <vt94q5$3jjod$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt9628$3hhr8$3@dont-email.me> <vtammh$174ev$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtavn9$1dp7m$3@dont-email.me> <87r01ysgxb.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <20250413205703.000059ce@yahoo.com> <vth16f$3g7ar$1@dont-email.me>
 <20250413221457.000029b3@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 03:03:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8eb48fd1a40bbe6e3060ca458c976fbf";
	logging-data="72653"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TslbRU4Mq+z5Oe9wdmEWNPXJ61v5KJ18="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:12pMIMThXC7FDZC8GgUQCbFlm/o=
In-Reply-To: <20250413221457.000029b3@yahoo.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2648

On 4/13/25 15:14, Michael S wrote:
....
> Yes, in practice it is the main reason why I find absence of
> system-independent correspondence between [u]intn_t types and basic
> integer types a PITA. But there exist few other cases where it causes
> problems, e.g. using Intel intrinsic like _addcarry_u64() in code that
> have to be compiled on different 64-bit OSes.

Well the basic integer types were intended to be system-specific,
specifically to allow each implementation to choose whatever worked best
for the target platform. That's one of the features that helped ensure
that there's a fully conforming implementation of C for such a wide
variety of platforms. The size-named types came later, and it is of
course impossible for the correspondence between system-specific and
size-named types to be system-independent.