erlang: Add int/1 and uint/1 as built-in types

[jhogberg]

This PR adds convenience types for expressing integers of a certain width and signedness, letting us remove ad-hoc definitions in various places.

[github-actions]

CT Test Results

    5 files    252 suites   2h 6m 50s ⏱️
4 114 tests 4 010 ✅ 103 💤 1 ❌
5 251 runs  5 122 ✅ 128 💤 1 ❌

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit 8d3e421.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

To speed up review, make sure that you have read Contributing to Erlang/OTP and that all checks pass.

See the TESTING and DEVELOPMENT HowTo guides for details about how to run test locally.

Artifacts

• Complete CT logs (Download Logs)
• HTML Documentation (Download HTML Docs)
• Windows Installer

// Erlang/OTP Github Action Bot

[michalmuskala]

I'm not sure those types are particularly useful by themselves. There's nothing that guarantees any operation on an int(32) type will be within bounds - e.g. adding two int(32) can easily over- or underflow and exceed the range. This means the types are effectively only useful for literals and can't be easily enforced.

If we really wanted this, I think it should be paired with some sort of int module that supports fixed-size integer operations.

[jhogberg]

Of course, this is just to standardize on a type instead of having lots of ad-hoc ones in socket, rand, etc.

[RaimoNiskanen]

This is just a much more convenient and readable way to write for example -16#7FFF_FFFF..16#7FFF_FFFE as int(32) instead. It will really improve readability for many socket options in socket, as well as in many other modules that deal with protocols and interfacing.