Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 00:20:51 -0700
On Wednesday, 16 October 2019 00:17:28 PDT Andrey Semashev via Std-Proposals
wrote:
> (u)int_leastN_t types are good for guaranteeing the lowest size, but
> they don't they don't offer much compared to (u)intN_t. Given that
> (u)intN_t are universally available, people don't see the point in using
> them.
According to the standard (u)intN_t aren't universally required, but
uint_leastN_t are.
wrote:
> (u)int_leastN_t types are good for guaranteeing the lowest size, but
> they don't they don't offer much compared to (u)intN_t. Given that
> (u)intN_t are universally available, people don't see the point in using
> them.
According to the standard (u)intN_t aren't universally required, but
uint_leastN_t are.
-- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Software Architect - Intel System Software Products
Received on 2019-10-16 02:23:06