XPost: comp.lang.c   
   From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com   
      
   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.   
      
   GCC does not define a complete C implementation; it doesn't provide a   
   library. Libraries are provided by other projects: Glibc, Musl,   
   ucLibc, ...   
      
   Those libraries are C implementors also, and get to name things   
   in the reserved namespace.   
      
   It would be unthinkable for GCC to introduce, say, an extension   
   using the identifier __libc_malloc.   
      
   In addition to libraries, if some other important project that serves as   
   a base package in many distributions happens to claim identifiers in   
   those spaces, it wouldn't be wise for GCC (or the C libraries) to start   
   taking them away.   
      
   You can't just rename the identifier out of the way in the offending   
   package, because that only fixes the issue going forward. Older versions   
   of the package can't be compiled with the new compiler without a patch.   
   Compiling older things with newer GCC happens.   
      
   There are always the questions:   
      
   1. Is there an issue? Is anything broken?   
      
   2. If so, is what is broken important such that it becomes a showstopper   
   if the compiler change is rolled out (major distros are on fire?)   
      
   --   
   TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr   
   Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal   
   Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)