cplusplus / nbballot

Handling of NB comments in response to ballots
14 stars 4 forks source link

GB-080 17.4.1 [cstdint.syn] Sync intmax_t and uintmax_t with C2x #447

Closed wg21bot closed 1 year ago

wg21bot commented 1 year ago

With the approval of https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/WG14/www/docs/n2888.htm the next C standard will resolve the long-standing issue that implementations cannot support 128-bit integer types properly without ABI breaks. C++ should adopt the same fix now, rather than waiting until a future C++ standard is rebased on C2x.

[cinttypes.syn] also mentions those types, but doesn't need a change. The proposed change allows intmax_t to be an extended integer type of the same width as long long, in which case we'd still want those abs overloads.

Add to [cstdint.syn] p2 "except that intmax_t is not required to be able to represent all values of extended integer types wider than long long, and uintmax_t is not required to be able to represent all values of extended integer types wider than unsigned long long."

FabioFracassi commented 1 year ago

GB-080: Sync intmax_t and uintmax_t with C2x

2022-11-08 10:00 to 11:30 UTC-10 Kona Library Evolution Minutes

POLL: Apply the resolution suggested in GB-080, relax the requirements on intmax_t/uintmax_t for C++23

Strongly Favor Weakly Favor Neutral Weakly Against Strongly Against
13 4 0 0 0

Attendance: 13 + 6

# of Authors: 1

Author Position: SF

Outcome: Unanimous consensus in favor.

JohelEGP commented 1 year ago

GB-080: Add operator!(errc)

That's another comment.

jwakely commented 1 year ago

That's another comment.

Fixed

jwakely commented 1 year ago

This will be addressed by LWG 3828

brycelelbach commented 1 year ago

2022-11 Library Evolution Electronic Poll Outcomes

Poll 1.16: Send the proposed resolution to C++23 National Body comment GB-080 Sync intmax_t And uintmax_t With C2x to Library Working Group for C++23, classified as an improvement of an existing feature ([P0592R4] bucket 2 item).

Strongly Favor Weakly Favor Neutral Weakly Against Strongly Against
12 8 0 0 0

Outcome: Unanimous consensus in favor.

brycelelbach commented 1 year ago

@JeffGarland heads up.

JeffGarland commented 1 year ago

https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21issaquah2023/LWG3828-20230206

poll: accept the proposed resolution for C++23 and make it immediate?

F A N
13 0 0
jwakely commented 1 year ago

Accepted with modification.