Re: VAX

From	Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.arch, comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: VAX
Date	2025-08-05 19:14 -0700
Organization	None to speak of
Message-ID	<87h5yl6vs7.fsf@example.invalid> (permalink)
References	(15 earlier) <20250804220315.00007240@yahoo.com> <6859dc0d-f3b5-481b-8ffb-b4c0a722412e@alumni.caltech.edu> <20250804224049.00006937@yahoo.com> <87ldny7397.fsf@example.invalid> <20250805141510.761@kylheku.com>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:
> On 2025-08-05, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Breaking existing code that uses "_BitInt" as an identifier is
>> a non-issue.  There very probably is no such code.
>
> However, that doesn't mean GCC can carelessly introduce identifiers
> in this namespace.

Agreed -- and in gcc did not do that in this case.  I was referring to
_BitInt, not to other identifiers in the reserved namespace.

Do you have any reason to believe that gcc's use of _BitInt will break
any existing code?  My best guess is that there is no such code, that
the only real world uses of the name _BitInt are deliberate uses of the
new C23 feature, and that gcc's support of _BitInt in non-C23 mode
will not break anything.

It is of course possible that I'm wrong.

If the name _BitInt did break (non-portable) existing C code, then the
fault would lie with the C committee, not with the gcc maintainers.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: VAX Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-08-04 18:28 +0300
  Re: VAX Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-08-04 09:53 -0700
    Re: VAX Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-08-04 22:03 +0300
      Re: VAX James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-08-04 15:25 -0400
        Re: VAX Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-08-04 22:40 +0300
          Re: VAX "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-04 12:44 -0700
          Re: VAX Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-08-04 22:21 -0700
            Re: VAX Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-05 21:25 +0000
              Re: VAX Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-08-05 19:14 -0700
                Re: VAX Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-06 04:31 +0000
                Re: VAX Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-08-06 11:48 +0300
              Re: VAX James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-08-06 11:56 -0400
                Re: VAX Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-12-15 11:51 -0800
          Re: VAX Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-05 21:13 +0000
            Re: VAX James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-08-06 11:54 -0400
              Re: VAX Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-08-06 13:58 -0700
                Re: VAX Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-06 21:33 -0800
      Re: VAX Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-05 21:08 +0000
        Re: VAX Jakob Bohm <egenagwemdimtapsar@jbohm.dk> - 2025-08-17 20:18 +0200
          Re: VAX Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-08-17 22:18 -0700
            Re: VAX Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-18 08:02 +0100
            Re: VAX David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-08-18 11:34 +0200
              Re: VAX Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-08-18 21:57 -0700
    Re: VAX Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-06 21:14 -0800

csiph-web