Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: _BitInt(N)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 18:10:13 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <878qfu3lru.fsf@example.invalid>
References: <10dajlh$ko3c$1@dont-email.me> <10fus62$hl69$1@solani.org> <10fv2dm$3can9$1@paganini.bofh.team> <10fv40v$1f7a2$1@dont-email.me> <87ms4c4bom.fsf@example.invalid> <10g08vm$1us25$1@dont-email.me> <10g1et7$2bmus$1@dont-email.me> <10g1j7h$2deh9$1@dont-email.me> <10g1qq9$2f8lb$4@dont-email.me> <10g28gm$2mf9s$1@dont-email.me> <10g2f2d$2oufq$1@dont-email.me> <10g2m3v$2s5sa$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 02:10:14 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fa7a31f1160d6b9aea861ca62102f1fd"; logging-data="3181354"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+QmvoFzIB8d8MC/5HNB7sd"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WH7ifbTPps/l3wNo7Nds7yup0RQ= sha1:kOwTG5Yx38e9NTMdlpF6W/RIfAY=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:395451

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 24/11/2025 20:26, David Brown wrote:
[...]
>> And this huge leap also lets you have 128-bit, 256-bit, 512-bit,
>> etc., 
>
> And 821 bits. This is what I don't get. Why is THAT so important?
>
> Why couldn't 128/256/etc have been added first, and then those funny
> ones if the demand was still there?

Because a more general definition, allowing all widths up to some
maximum, is *simpler* than a definition with arbitrary restrictions.
And since it's already been implemented, what the heck are you
complaining about?

> If the proposal had instead been simply to extend the 'u8 u16 u32 u64'
> set of types by a few more entries on the right, say 'u128 u256 u512',
> would anyone have been clamouring for types like 'u1187'? I doubt it.

You do know that u8, u16, et al are not C types, right?  (Yes, I know
what you mean by those names.)

> For sub-64-bit types on conventional hardware, I simply can't see the
> point, not if they are rounded up anyway. Either have a full
> range-based types like Ada, or not at all.

Great, so don't use them.

If the ISO C committee withdrew the current official 2023 standard
document and replaced it with one that imposes restrictions on _BitInt
types, and gcc and clang withdrew their implementations, would that
satisfy you?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */