Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: VAX Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2025 19:14:48 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 25 Message-ID: <87h5yl6vs7.fsf@example.invalid> References: <0c857b8347f07f3a0ca61c403d0a8711@www.novabbs.com> <2025Jul30.075918@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2025Aug1.191648@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <106jvc3$qan0$1@dont-email.me> <106kh0k$18ipb$1@paganini.bofh.team> <2025Aug3.185110@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <106otf6$1sov2$1@dont-email.me> <106p4k6$1u13o$1@dont-email.me> <20250804121938.0000122a@yahoo.com> <2025Aug4.140932@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2025Aug4.165141@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <20250804182839.00000600@yahoo.com> <87sei7do4g.fsf@example.invalid> <20250804220315.00007240@yahoo.com> <6859dc0d-f3b5-481b-8ffb-b4c0a722412e@alumni.caltech.edu> <20250804224049.00006937@yahoo.com> <87ldny7397.fsf@example.invalid> <20250805141510.761@kylheku.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2025 02:14:51 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a1d8d86f54dc776c8d74f7b67e60c5df"; logging-data="3277169"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Y3pgI9323Z8yCIWJw9hL3" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:IvWtiPtY5542Ij0WbFhiuoGbRuI= sha1:cReMK1snE7f/v2PknpRoi8gBelQ= Xref: csiph.com comp.arch:112977 comp.lang.c:394025 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes: > On 2025-08-05, Keith Thompson 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 */