XPost: comp.lang.c
From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com
On 2025-08-06, Keith Thompson wrote:
> 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?
It has landed, and we don't hear reports that the sky is falling.
If it does break someone's obscure project with few users, unless that
person makes a lot of noise in some forums I read, I will never know.
My position has always been to think about the threat of real,
or at least probable clashes.
I can turn it around: I have not heard of any compiler or library using
_CreamPuff as an identifier, or of a compiler which misbehaves when a
program uses it, on grounds of it being undefined behavior. Someone
using _CreamPuff in their code is taking a risk that is vanishingly
small, the same way that introducing _BigInt is a risk that is
vanishingly small.
In fact, in some sense the risk is smaller because the audience of
programs facing an implementation (or language) that has introduced some
identifier is vastly larger than the audience of implementations that a
given program will face that has introduced some funny identifier.
--
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)
|
