Peter Rosin wrote:

> better patch might be a configure check to see
> if %td works, with machinery to set printint/pI to ptrdiff_t/"t" if it does and
> fall back to long int/"l" if it doesn't.

That'd be more work to develop and would be more likely to go wrong and would 
slow down 'configure'. I installed the attached patch instead.

> My main beef with the GCS on this issue is that it suggests that maintainers
> should not spend any time at all on this issue, as if that would be contrary
> to some other goal.

It sucks away resources that could be used to support more-important goals. 
We've already spent more time on Bug#24311 than the problem was worth. 
Maintainers should not expend any significant time going down this rabbit hole.