> I don't see what the stor-layout.c changes have to do with that > description, or why they are correct (they look wrong to me; the > existing addition of BITS_PER_UNIT_LOG + 1 looks logically correct > for bitsizetype).
sooo... the type for bitsizetype will *always* be a bigger type than sizetype? Even when sizetype is already the largest type the target can handle naturally?
