XPost: comp.lang.c   
   From: jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu   
      
   On 2025-08-05 17:25, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   GCC cannot be implemented in such a way as to create a fully conforming   
   implementation of C when used in connection with an arbitrary   
   implementation of the C standard library. This is just one example of a   
   more general potential problem: Both gcc and the library must use some   
   reserved identifiers, and they might have made conflicting choices.   
   That's just one example of the many things that might prevent them from   
   being combined to form a conforming implementation of C. It doesn't mean   
   that either one is defective. It does mean that the two groups of   
   implementors should consider working together to resolve the conflicts.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)