Unpopular opinion: i64, int64_t, Int64 and similar types should be named according to their actual meaning, Ring64.
Even better, all programming languages should have a Ring[N] type that provides unit, zero addition and multiplication over a domain of N-bit strings, with the compiler applying proper optimizations when available (and requested).
@Shamar int64_t is not allowed to overflow, so it is not a ring. If you rearrange/transform formulas according to rules of a ring you might break something that was carefully crafted to not overflow.
uint64_t however is a finite field.
Ring could be a useful concept (type requirement), but so many things can be rings that as a specific type it's meaningless.
