> There's no reason `sizeof int` has to equal `sizeof intptr_t` Well, there is no reason `sizeof int` should be 4 on 64-bit platforms except for the historical

> There's no reason `sizeof int` has to equal `sizeof intptr_t` Well, there is no reason `sizeof int` should be 4 on 64-bit platforms except for the historical baggage (which was so heavy for Windows, they couldn't move even long to be 64 bits). But having an int to be a wider type than intptr_t probably wouldn't hurt things (as in, most software would work as-is after simple recompilation).