I was not particularly interested in the term values as per “C++ standard per definition” of the abstract machine, but either or not you could physically get a computer to do it.
Can you use something like _BitInt(512) to write algorithm, have a compiler not respect alignment requirements expected to load a zmm register, and have a guarantee that the compiler would spit out machine code that that would be able to run and perform as expected?
The answer is no, unless you’re a willing to also issue realignment instruction as required every time you need to load or store.

Talking about the abstract machine is a red herring, abstract machines don’t run code, physical computers do. Ands it’s irrelevant that you can represent something in a programming language if the machine is physically unable to do something (i.e. unimplementable).

I can define that a uint64_t has an alignment of 3, and be purely consistent as far as the language goes. You just wouldn’t be able to compile that (or if you do it wouldn’t run on your machine without realignment).

Am I incorrect on this?


From: Tom Honermann <tom_at_honermann.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2025 16:18
To: std-proposals_at_[hidden]; David Brown <david.brown_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Tiago Freire <tmiguelf_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [std-proposals] D3666R0 Bit-precise integers


It has taken me a while to catch up on all of the recent emails.

Tiago, this is at least the third time that I've seen you passionately arguing for a perspective that is objectively incorrect from the perspective of the C++ standard. David provided clear and unambiguous references to the C and C++ standards to justify his (correct) view and interpretation of values and objects. You have a fine understanding of how some machines work. It is clear to me that you lack some understanding of how the C and C++ languages define an abstract language that can be mapped to a wide variety of hardware (including the various mental model compilers that reside in each of our minds). I suggest a little humility and advise you to take some time to study the C and C++ standards more thoroughly, particularly with regard to terminology.

Values do not have alignment. They do not even have representation (in the C and C++ standards). They are platonic abstractions. Rvalues correspond to a value.

Values may be held in objects. Objects have value representation and alignment defined by their type. Objects reside in addressable storage. Lvalues refer to an object.

A psABI defines alignment for types appropriate for the applicable machine(s). Those specifications assign alignment and representation appropriate for the manipulation of objects and operations on values.

Tom.
On 9/5/25 5:34 AM, Tiago Freire via Std-Proposals wrote:
And yet you don't understand that in some CPUs store/loads cannot strut across cache lines.
This is something that a CPU may not have the circuitry to physically do.


________________________________
From: David Brown <david.brown_at_[hidden]><mailto:david.brown_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 9:09:40 AM
To: Tiago Freire <tmiguelf_at_[hidden]><mailto:tmiguelf_at_[hidden]>; std-proposals_at_[hidden]<mailto:std-proposals_at_[hidden]> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]><mailto:std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [std-proposals] D3666R0 Bit-precise integers

On 04/09/2025 17:18, Tiago Freire wrote:
> I've not made a mistake. I've not mixed up bits and bytes. Please show
> me a quote where that happened?

In a post on 04.09.2025 08:27 you wrote in a reply to Jan Schultke "I do
mean bytes, not bits". I took that to mean you saw you had been unclear
or mixed up about bytes and bits. After all, you had been talking about
the alignments of something you wrote as "64Byte" - it was not at all
clear if you were talking about the alignment of a 64-bit type (which is
what everyone else was talking about, including the C23 standards), or
some kind of 64 /byte/ alignment (which would clearly be absurd at the
level of programming languages and/or ABIs).

I apologise if I misinterpreted you there.

>
> I don't know why you are trying to gaslight.

I am not doing that at all. I am merely frustrated in this conversation.

>
> If you don't know how CPU's work just say you don't know how it works!

I have studied the architecture of perhaps 20 or more processor designs,
from 4-bit to 64-bit and a few odd ones in-between, and written serious
assembly-level programs on most of them. The field of processor
architecture is vast, and there is a vast amount I don't know, but I
/do/ know how they work.

I also - and this is the key point - understand the difference between a
high-level programming language and its specification, and particular
implementations that might be used with it. I'm sure you have at least
a reasonable understanding of how cpus work too - but I am very sure you
don't understand the separation of programming language design and
implementation. You have to understand that distinction if you are
going to understand why _BitInt can be a useful (albeit fairly niche)
addition to C++, and why it will work both on "normal" processors and
specialist hardware. It will also help you understand why many of your
ideas are at odds with the other posters here who all want standard C++
to be improved as a programming language, rather than become some weird
hybrid assembly for a few chosen processors and your favourite assembly
instructions of the day. I sincerely hope you can understand this
distinction, and we can get back to discussions about C++ here.

It would probably be good if you didn't reply, at least not to this
mailing list. (My email address is david.brown_at_[hidden]<mailto:david.brown_at_[hidden]>, if you
feel further discussions would be helpful.)