Re: [PATCH v1] Replace {u}int_fast{16|32} with {u}int32_t

[Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>]

On 4/11/22 09:58, Noah Goldstein via Libc-alpha wrote:
> -   uint_fast16_t stack_flags = DEFAULT_STACK_PERMS;
> +   uint32_t stack_flags = DEFAULT_STACK_PERMS;

Doesn't this lose width info - or worse, add misleading info? For this 
particular case it looks like we need 32 bits, when we don't.

If we want to lose info, it'd be simpler to use plain 'int' and 
'unsigned int' for situations like these. That's less misleading.

If we don't want to lose info, it'd be better to define private types 
like glibc_uint_fast16_t and use these private types to address 
efficiency concerns.

I prefer losing the width info here, as this will cause less 
bikeshedding in the future. But if we want to keep width info, surely we 
should not make it more misleading.