From: already5chosen@yahoo.com   
      
   On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 13:15:21 +0100   
   David Brown  wrote:   
      
   >   
   > I did not say that.  (You really need to get a better understanding   
   > of basic logic.)  I said that arbitrary sized integers need a library   
   > - I did not say that fixed-sized integers do not need a library.   
   >   
   > Perhaps more clearly, arbitrary sized integers need a user-visible   
   > library in C.  They need functions to allocate, deallocate, and copy   
   > the integers, as well as converting to and from normal integers, at a   
   > bare minimum.   
   >   
      
   Perhaps things will become even more clear if we make distinction   
   between run-time library and compiler support library.   
      
   In specific case of gcc, the latter is called libgcc. It is (almost)   
   per architecture. (Almost) the same libgcc works on x86-64 Windows,   
   Linux, BSD or Solaris. The same for other popular architectures.   
      
   The former, on the other hand, is certainly different on different   
   platforms with the same architecture, but sometimes can be different on   
   the same platform/architecture. For example, newlib nowadays used   
   almost exclusively on embedded platforms without real OS, but   
   historically was invented for Linux, by people, not totally unlike Bart   
   in their attitude, that hated code bloat of glibc.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)