Re: VAX

From	Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.arch, comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: VAX
Date	2025-08-04 09:53 -0700
Organization	None to speak of
Message-ID	<87sei7do4g.fsf@example.invalid> (permalink)
References	(9 earlier) <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>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 12:09:32 GMT
> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote:
[...]
>> typedef ump unsigned _BitInt(65535);

The correct syntax is :

typedef unsigned _BitInt(65535) ump;

>> ump sum3(ump a, ump b, ump c)
>> {
>>    return a+b+c;
>> }

[...]

> 1. Both gcc and clang happily* accept _BitInt() syntax even when
> -std=c17 or lower. Is not here a potential name clash for existing
> sources that use _BitInt() as a name of the function? I should think
> more about it.

In C17 and earlier, _BitInt is a reserved identifier.  Any attempt to
use it has undefined behavior.  That's exactly why new keywords are
often defined with that ugly syntax.

Both gcc and clang warn about _BitInt with invoked with "-std=c17 -pedantic".

[...]

> * - the only sign of less than perfect happiness is a warning produced
>   with -pedantic flag.

Yes, both are behaving reasonably.  If you don't use "-pedantic",
you're telling the compiler you don't want standard conformance.
(I'd be happier if conformance were the default, but we're stuck
with it.)  But accepting _BitInt in pre-C23 mode is conforming.

> Cross-posted to c.lang.c

I've kept the cross-post to comp.lang.c and comp.arch.

-- 
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