From: pkk@spth.de   
      
   Am 24.11.25 um 15:21 schrieb bart:   
   >>> I had been responding to the claim that those smaller types save   
   >>> memory, compared to using sizes 8/16/32 bits which are commonly   
   >>> available and have better hardware support.   
   >>   
   >> I don't recall any such claim.  Do you have a citation (other than   
   >> the FPGA-specific wording in N2709)?   
   >   
   > This is where it came up in this thread:   
   >   
   > On 23/11/2025 11:46, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:   
   >  > Am 22.10.25 um 14:45 schrieb Thiago Adams:   
   >  >>   
   >  >>   
   >  >> Is anyone using or planning to use this new C23 feature?   
   >  >> What could be the motivation?   
   >  >>   
   >  >>   
   >  >   
   >  > Saving memory by using the smallest multiple-of-8 N that will do. Also   
   >  > being able to use bit-fields wider than int.   
   >  >   
   >  > Saving memory for two reasons:   
   >  >   
   >  > * On small embedded systems where there is very little memory   
   >  > * For code that needs to be very fast on big systems to make data   
   >  > structures fit into cache   
   >  >   
   >   
   > Although this doesn't go as far as using odd bit-sizes: it would mean   
   > using sizes like 24, 40, 48, and 56 bits instead of 32 or 64 bits.   
   >   
   > The savings would be sparse.   
   >   
   >   
      
   "On small embedded systems" - those tend to be 8-bit systems, so   
   compilers targeting them would only round up to multiple of 8, i.e. a   
   BitInt(40) is exactly 5 bytes. Also "bit-fields wider than int" - for   
   bit-fields it can indeed make sense to have a width that is not a   
   multiple of 8, if the remaining bits of the last byte can be used for   
   other purposes.   
      
   Philipp   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)