[Cfp-interest 1667] Re: intmax_t removal

[Fred J. Tydeman]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 10:12:18 -0700 Jim Thomas wrote:
>
>"or rounds to an integral value that is outside the range of any supported integer type of the specified width" seems wrong (at best ambiguous). Is -2 outside the range of any integer type of width 32? What if there is no supported type of the specified width? Better might be something like " or rounds to an integral value that is outside the range of integers (signed or unsigned, respectively) of the specified width, ".

Your text is better.  Done.


>If we change the return type to floating, we can do better than return an unspecified value. I'll send suggestions in a subsequent message.

I added words to return a NaN (if available), else, HUGE_VAL.



---
Fred J. Tydeman        Tydeman Consulting
tydeman at tybor.com      Testing, numerics, programming
+1 (702) 608-6093      Vice-chair of PL22.11 (ANSI "C")
Sample C99+FPCE tests: http://www.tybor.com
Savers sleep well, investors eat well, spenders work forever.