<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 18 October 2013 19:14, Gabriel Dos Reis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gdr@axiomatics.org" target="_blank">gdr@axiomatics.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Herb Sutter <<a href="mailto:hsutter@microsoft.com">hsutter@microsoft.com</a>> writes:<br>
<br>
| 18.4.1 in the current working draft has:<br>
|<br>
| typedef signed integer type int8_t; // optional<br>
| typedef signed integer type int16_t; // optional<br>
| typedef signed integer type int32_t; // optional<br>
| typedef signed integer type int64_t; // optional<br>
| typedef signed integer type intptr_t; // optional<br>
| typedef unsigned integer type uint8_t; // optional<br>
| typedef unsigned integer type uint16_t; // optional<br>
| typedef unsigned integer type uint32_t; // optional<br>
| typedef unsigned integer type uint64_t; // optional<br>
| typedef unsigned integer type uintptr_t; // optional<br>
|<br>
| Does it really make sense for these to still be optional?<br>
<br>
I would be very grateful if EWG (and C liaisons?) claimed ownership of<br>
these issues [ and took them of my yard :-)]<br>
<br>
<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Would anyone like to summarize the EWG issue people desire to raise? Just<br>making the optional int types non-optional? Something further than that as well?<br></div><div>Nailing down CHAR_BIT? Anything else?<br>
</div></div><br></div></div>