title: Fundamental types
body: <p>I always thought the following types are "fundamental types", so I thought my answer to this <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2144012/explicit-type-conversion-and-multiple-simple-type-specifiers">question</a> would be correct, but surprisingly it got downvoted...</p>
  
  <p>Searching the web, I found <a href="http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iadthelp/v7r0/topic/com.ibm.etools.iseries.langref.doc/as400clr54.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a>. So, IBM says as well those types are fundamental types..</p>
  
  <p>Well how do you interpret the Standard?  <b>Are the following types (and similar types), <i>"fundamental types"</i> according to the C++ standard ?</b></p>
  
  <pre><code>unsigned int
  signed char
  long double
  short int
  unsigned short int
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>EDIT: <br>
  Again related to this <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2144012/explicit-type-conversion-and-multiple-simple-type-specifiers">question</a>:
  Comceau and gcc dont treat types like "long double", "short int" or "unsigned int" as "fundamental type"! (whereas ibm, intel and microsoft compilers do..)
  If they did treat such types as fundamental types, following code should compile: <code>short int i = short int()</code><br></p>
  
  <p>EDIT:<br>
  removed <code>long long</code> types, as i forgot they are not officially standard yet..</p>