On 2019-10-16 10:20, Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals wrote:
> 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.

Yes, but in practice they are universally available. As are (u)intptr_t.