intmay be as small as 16 bits on some platforms. It may not be sufficient for your application.uint32_tis not guaranteed to exist. It’s an optionaltypedefthat the implementation must provide iff it has an unsigned integer type of exactly 32-bits. Some have a 9-bit bytes for example, so they don’t have auint32_t.uint_fast32_tstates your intent clearly: it’s a type of at least 32 bits which is the best from a performance point-of-view.uint_fast32_tmay be in fact 64 bits long. It’s up to the implementation.- There’s also
uint_least32_tin the mix. It designates the smallest type that’s at least 32 bits long, thus it can be smaller thanuint_fast32_t. It’s an alternative touint32_tif the later isn’t supported by the platform.
… there is
uint_fast32_twhich has the same typedef asuint32_t…
What you are looking at is not the standard. It’s a particular implementation (BlackBerry). So you can’t deduce from there that uint_fast32_t is always the same as uint32_t.
See also:
-
Exotic architectures the standards committees care about.
-
My pragmatic opinion about integer types in C and C++.