James Kuyper <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> There's a simpler way to reach that conclusion. There's no limit to
> the number and alignment requirements of extended integer types, and
> extended integer types will in general have names that can't be used
> in portable code. Some, many, perhaps even all of the extended types
> will be referred to by one or more standard-named typedefs. However,
> as long as an implementation has even a single extended integer type
> for which none of the standard-defined types is a typedef, portable
> code has no way to refer to that type. That type can have an alignment
> restriction that is stricter than the restriction on any
> standard-named type.
Realistically, it's unlikely that any integer type will have stricter
alignment requirements than intmax_t and/or uintmax_t, but of course
there's no guarantee of this.