Re: Dynamic loading progress

[Paul Eggert]

Philipp Stephani wrote:
> Maybe not likely, but not impossible.

I've never run into it, and have never heard of anyone running into it. In 
contrast, there are a few machines without int64_t -- though admittedly rare, we 
might as well not impose obstacles to porting to them if it's easy, which it is 
here.

intmax_t is not the only alternative. We could also use 'long long int'. That's 
also portable to any C99 host, and should be just as well supported as intmax_t 
is (it has printf formats too). 'long long int' has been around for longer than 
intmax_t has, so in that sense it's a more-conservative choice.