On 2018-08-20 09:17:11 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > It says even uintmax_t might not be sufficient. It also says that if > intptr_t and uintptr_t are defined, then they can hold the value of > any void*. > > So it seems like you're not actually solving the problem by using > uintmax_t, just reducing it. If uintmax_t doesn't work, the problem isn't really solvable. > I still think it's best to use uintptr_t when available. The issue is that it is not always available. And if it is, then uintmax_t is guaranteed to be at least as large by definition, so that uintmax_t will necessarily work. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
