> Maybe in a decade or two we'll have computers as follows

With any luck people will be writing bit width explicitly (`i32`, `i64`,
`i128`, etc) in a decade and this won't matter

Cheers,
Jeremy

On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 11:22 AM Frederick Virchanza Gotham via
Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Jonathan wrote:
> > This certainly looks like it's checking for promotion:
> >
> > std::is_same< uint_fast32_t, decltype(uint_fast32_t() + > >
> uint_fast32_t()) >
>
>
> Yeah that's exactly what I meant.
>
>
> Jonathan also wrote:
> >> So anyway my code looks a little ridiculous in places
> >> as I'm super-paranoid about stuff such as a 32-Bit
> >> unsigned int promoting to a 64-Bit signed int.
> >
> > As discussed, there are no platforms in existence where that can happen,
> > and that's unlikely to change.
>
>
> You're saying there will never be a computer with a 64-Bit int?
> Because on such a computer, a 32-Bit integer type (for instance 'short
> unsigned') would promoted to a 64-Bit int.
>
> Maybe in a decade or two we'll have computers as follows:
>
> char - 8
> short - 32
> int - 64
> long - 128
> long long - 128
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>