I mean yes, it *can* correspond to a standard integer type, but generally
won't. Or more to the point, there's no type in the standard which is
required to satisfy `int_least128_t`, which is currently true for all other
mandatory `int_leastN_t` types (`int_least8_t` is satisfied by `signed
char`, `int_least16_t` is satisfied by `short` or `int`, `int_least32_t` is
satisfied by `long`, and `int_least64_t` by `long long`).

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 at 19:38, Jan Schultke <janschultke_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> Who says that it doesn't correspond to a standard integer type? For
> all you know,
>
> > using int_least128_t = signed char;
>
> It's compliant :)
>