On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:46 AM 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. > > > 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. On what system do you have uintmax_t but not uintptr_t? Is there one, or is this just conjecture?
