The base integer types have always been open ended since C89. It has always been wrong to assume an exact size when writing code that depends on modular wraparound. The code is wrong.
Prior to stdint.h there was no portable way to address this but new code should be written using the type system as intended. Open ended when the minimum is sufficient and larger storage is inconsequential. Exact size when the algorithm requires it.
There's actually a fairly big difference with the context of the language preventing the error.
If the code is wrong as in undefined behavior, then the compiler can and maybe should try to prevent it. If the programmer is wrong about the code, then the compiler can't and definitely shouldn't try to prevent it.
Its not the same. The compiler can protect against code which is incorrect. The compiler cannot do anything to help with code that is correct but does the wrong thing.
But if the code was written with intention to be platform-independent, and turned out to be platform-dependent... it's the programmer who wrote it is wrong, not the code itself? Or do I misunderstand you completely?
Let's say I know the Swedish language, in which "öl" means "beer", and I travel to Germany to partake in the Oktoberfest celebrations. I arrive and in Germany and immediately try to order a beer and try to say "One Beer Please", but not mastering the language I say "Ein Öl Bitte" (meaning "one oil please"). I don't think the that's a bug in the German language, and the sentence itself is perfectly good German. It just doesn't say what I think it does.
Prior to stdint.h there was no portable way to address this but new code should be written using the type system as intended. Open ended when the minimum is sufficient and larger storage is inconsequential. Exact size when the algorithm requires it.