From: tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com   
      
   Keith Thompson  writes:   
      
   > David Brown  writes:   
   > [...]   
   >   
   >> (I am not entirely sure, but I think it is standards-conforming for   
   >> an implementation to haev BITINT_MAXWIDTH set to 64 and support all   
   >> _BitInts up size 64, and then also support _BitInts of multiples of   
   >> 64 thereafter.  Use of _BitInt greater than BITINT_MAXWIDTH is UB   
   >> in the standard - so an implementation can choose to give that a   
   >> defined behaviour for specific sizes.)   
   >   
   > [...]   
   >   
   > No, _BitInt(N) where N > BITINT_MAXWIDTH is a constraint violation.   
   >   
   > N3220 6.7.3.1p2 ("Constraints") :   
   >   
   >     The parenthesized constant expression that follows the _BitInt   
   >     keyword shall be an integer constant expression N that specifies   
   >     the width (6.2.6.2) of the type.  The value of N for unsigned   
   >     _BitInt shall be greater than or equal to 1.  The value of N   
   >     for _BitInt shall be greater than or equal to 2.  The value of   
   >     N shall be less than or equal to the value of BITINT_MAXWIDTH   
   >     (see 5.2.5.3.2).   
   >   
   > As I mentioned before, there's a proposal for C2y to allow   
   > signed _BitInt(1).   
      
   Yay!  Sanity prevails.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)