XPost: comp.lang.c   
   From: Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com   
      
   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 */   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)