Re: do { quit; } else { }

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.