On 18 October 2013 19:14, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Herb Sutter <hsutter_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> | 18.4.1 in the current working draft has:
> |
> | typedef signed integer type int8_t; // optional
> | typedef signed integer type int16_t; // optional
> | typedef signed integer type int32_t; // optional
> | typedef signed integer type int64_t; // optional
> | typedef signed integer type intptr_t; // optional
> | typedef unsigned integer type uint8_t; // optional
> | typedef unsigned integer type uint16_t; // optional
> | typedef unsigned integer type uint32_t; // optional
> | typedef unsigned integer type uint64_t; // optional
> | typedef unsigned integer type uintptr_t; // optional
> |
> | Does it really make sense for these to still be optional?
>
> I would be very grateful if EWG (and C liaisons?) claimed ownership of
> these issues [ and took them of my yard :-)]
>
>
>
>
Would anyone like to summarize the EWG issue people desire to raise? Just
making the optional int types non-optional? Something further than that as
well?
Nailing down CHAR_BIT? Anything else?