> This wouldn't be a problem if "int" was defined as the same size as size_t. ILP64 causes a lot of problems, most notably needlessly-increased memory usage a

> This wouldn't be a problem if "int" was defined as the same size as size_t. ILP64 causes a lot of problems, most notably needlessly-increased memory usage and, in C, the inconvenience of requesting a 32-bit type when int is 64-bit. It's rather uncommon to actually need the extra 64-bit range except when describing pointer addresses and memory/disk sizes, both of which benefit from an explicit intptr_t/size_t type for readability if nothing else.