From: antispam@fricas.org   
      
   bart  wrote:   
   > And yet, integer widths have been roughly capped at double a machine   
   > word size for decades - until 64 bits came along and then few even   
   > bothered with double-width.   
   >   
   > Nobody thought how easy it would be to just have an integer of whatever   
   > size you like - you just generate whatever code is necessary to make it   
   > happen. We could have had BitInts on 32- and even 16-bit machines if   
   > only somebody had thought of it!   
      
   PL/I had things like 'fixed binary(23)' (that is ability to   
   specify bit size) around 1965, but that stopped at machine   
   word length.  Pascal had range types, but similarly stopped   
   at at integer size.  GNU Pascal allowed specifiying size in   
   bits and going to twice machine word (that was limitation   
   imposed by gcc backend).   
      
   And yes, such types could be added much earlier and it   
   is a shame that they are added only now.   
      
   This IMHO was classic example of inertia: people needing   
   larger integers were used to fact that mainstream lower   
   level languages provided no support, so they used their   
   own special purpose code.  Since apparently programs were   
   written compiler writers assumed that there is no need for   
   bigger integer types.  As long as no compiler provided   
   support for bigger integers, no was loosing marked due to   
   lack of such feature.  Fortunately, LLVM added them and   
   after that competitive pressure led to gcc adding such   
   types.   
      
   Part of reason may be that in nineties usage of other   
   (than C) lower level languages went down.  C was   
   traditionally quite minimal and did not want new to   
   introduce new features.   
      
   --   
                                 Waldek Hebisch   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)