Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Date: Thu, 08 May 2025 22:53:42 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 45 Message-ID: <86tt5uz5w9.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <87y0wjaysg.fsf@gmail.com> <87h62ys4w5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86ecy2c5o4.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87mscprhhe.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20250409105549.000037dd@yahoo.com> <86semhawhs.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250410115004.00005276@yahoo.com> <86ikn79mlq.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250414125529.00000673@yahoo.com> <86a57p3kro.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87bjs5fpvi.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <867c2r15bc.fsf@linuxsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Fri, 09 May 2025 07:53:44 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c0819416c3e5eeeb647f678b89b2e368"; logging-data="2731304"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18RNpMCis7I0PiR0I2GFwbmX5UUsxca/M4=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:NZ3XSbxvmJCbFPviaICRZh4NETI= sha1:51jAOqYHTAYSGU5W14jvi6BcMjk= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:393277 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > Tim Rentsch writes: > >> Keith Thompson writes: >> >>> Tim Rentsch writes: >>> >>>> Michael S writes: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 01:24:49 -0700 >>>>> Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> about where they may or may not be used. Do you really have a >>>>>> problem avoiding identifiers defined in this or that library >>>>>> header, either for all headers or just those headers required >>>>>> for freestanding implementations? >>>>> >>>>> I don't know. In order to know I'd have to include all >>>>> standard headers into all of my C files >>>> >>>> Let me ask the question differently. Have you ever run into an >>>> actual problem due to inadvertent collision with a reserved >>>> identifier? >>> >>> I'm not Michael, but I was once mildly inconvienced because I >>> defined a logging function called log(). The solution was >>> trivial: I changed the name. >> >> Yes, I expect I have run into similar situations. What I was >> wondering about were problems where either the existence of the >> problem or what to do to fix it needed more than a minimal >> effort. > > I recall running into issues using variables named 'index' > when porting code to SVR4 when the BSD compatibility layer > was present. > > https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=index&sektion=3 I understand how that might be annoying. Did you have any trouble either discovering what the problem was or fixing it once you did, or both? I presume there was no difficulty in knowing that there /was/ a problem; is that not the case?