> This is an idea that is so doomed that anyone trying to rescue it, didn't really understand the problem with intmax_t. The C committee doesn't want to rescue

> This is an idea that is so doomed that anyone trying to rescue it, didn't really understand the problem with intmax_t. The C committee doesn't want to rescue intmax_t. If they had a time machine most members would prevent it ever being added. But it was and now it can't be removed; it takes decades to get breaking changes into the standard. intmax_t is a thornier problem than time_t and needs a more comprehensive approach that requires some careful assistance from the C standard itself. There's no completely fixing the mess. The goal is to find an acceptable solution that allows everybody to begin to move past intmax_t given the various technical and practical constraints. The goal is not to find a solution that allows for expanded use of intmax_t, at least not in the standard, though it may be the case it can never completely go away.