From: already5chosen@yahoo.com   
      
   On Mon, 24 Nov 2025 00:30:46 +0000   
   bart  wrote:   
   >   
   > It is an unnecessary complication. There will be a lot of extra rules   
   > that maybe partly 'implementation defined', so behaviour may vary.   
   > And people WILL uses those types because they are there, and likely   
   > they will be inefficient.   
   >   
   > What happens when a 391-bit type, even unsigned, overflows? These   
   > larger types are likely to use a multiple of 64-bits, and for 391   
   > bits will need 7 x 64 bits, of which the last word will have 57 bits   
   > of padding. It's very messy.   
      
   To me, it does not sound as a problem at all, at least for unsigned   
   types. Masking out unnecessary MS bits in MS word is easy.   
   Even for signed, sign extension of MS word is not as easy, as masking   
   out, but hardly a rocket science. The problem with signed is that   
   signed overflow is a saint cow of the temple of worshipers of nazal   
   demons. So, authors of proposal were afraid of touching it.   
      
   >   
   > Specifying a multiple of 64 bits is better; a power of two even   
   > better.   
   >   
      
   I strongly disagree. Being able to specify, say, 192-bit integers is   
   a useful thing. Esp. in context of multiplication and division.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)