XPost: comp.lang.c   
   From: already5chosen@yahoo.com   
      
   On Wed, 6 Aug 2025 04:31:59 -0000 (UTC)   
   Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   Exactly.   
   The World is a very big place. Even nowadays it is not completely   
   transparent. Even those parts that are publicly visible in theory not   
   necessarily had been had been observed recently by a single person even   
   if the person in question is Keith.   
   Besides, according to my understanding majority of gcc users didn't yet   
   migrate to gcc14 or 15.   
      
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)