Except for integer-literals containing a size-suffix, if the value of an integer-literal cannot be represented by any type in its list and an extended integer type ([basic.fundamental]) can represent its value, it may have that extended integer type.
It is unclear whether this choice of extended integer type is implementation-defined or unspecified.
Suggested Resolution
It makes logical sense for the implementation to document what type is chosen in such a case. If this behavior is documented, the user can reason about what types may be chosen for their integer-literals, which is obviously useful. The behavior should be implementation-defined.
[...] if the value of an integer-literal cannot be represented by any type in its list and an
+implementation-defined
extended integer type ([basic.fundamental]) can represent its value,
it may have that extended integer type.
Full name of submitter: Jan Schultke
Reference (section label): [lex.icon]
Issue Description
In [lex.icon] p4, it is stated that:
It is unclear whether this choice of extended integer type is implementation-defined or unspecified.
Suggested Resolution
It makes logical sense for the implementation to document what type is chosen in such a case. If this behavior is documented, the user can reason about what types may be chosen for their integer-literals, which is obviously useful. The behavior should be implementation-defined.