On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 at 15:46, Vincent Lefevre <vincent+gcc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. And since I can't imagine an implementation where uintmax_t works but uintptr_t is not defined, I am generalising that to "If uintptr_t is not defined, the problem isn't really solvable".
