Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: _BitInt(N) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2025 18:05:40 -0800 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 35 Message-ID: <87a5039csr.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> <10gfkqd$19n2d$1@paganini.bofh.team> <10gftqi$3qhkg$1@dont-email.me> <87sedw9wjh.fsf@example.invalid> <10gga8k$3v646$1@dont-email.me> <10gghbg$3htol$4@dont-email.me> <10gheka$bgvr$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2025 02:05:41 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8213f2dfee378269bbe79a5548f849a1"; logging-data="932400"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+QUB/sQ/dUEJ7hjxri8dqL" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:JWOohd0KSRoryoVgT2IX0ko6kMg= sha1:hPGpZ5SscCcxpIoi+L7xSs4NyNE= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:395622 bart writes: [...] > Yet over the past decades nobody has been screaming because they > couldn't have a 31-bit or 65-bit numeric type. But now suddenly > EVERYONE wants to be able to do that, and on huge numbers! No. Nobody here, myself included, is "screaming" about 31-bit or 65-bit integer types (other than you). The current edition of the C standard, C23, mandates support for bit-precise integer types. Support for 31-bit types is mandatory. Support for 65-bit types is optional (BITINT_MAXWIDTH can be as small as 64). Most of us, myself included, have been discussing this feature: how it's defined, how it can be used, how compilers can implement it. Most of us are more interested in discussing C as it's defined, and how to use it, than in advocacy for or against new features. I have never advocated for or against bit-precise integer types. I'm not sure how long I've known about them. I observe that they are now a standard part of the C language. It is a fact that any conforming C23 compiler must support _BitInt types with odd sizes. You argue that bit-precise types with sizes that don't meet your personal criteria are silly and should be forbidden by the language. Well, they aren't, and that's not going to change. I understand that you think bit-precise types should have been defined less flexibly; how many times do you need to repeat it? -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */