From: tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com   
      
   James Kuyper  writes:   
      
   > 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. [...]   
      
   I'm not sure this assertion is right exactly.  The interface to any   
   implementation of the standard library is through a well-defined set   
   of header files.  In principle the rest of a C implementation could   
   examine those header files programmatically and systematically avoid   
   any conflicts.  Similarly the run-time libraries of the standard   
   library can be examined to avoid any conflicts there.  Certainly it   
   isn't convenient to construct such an implementation, but it does   
   seem to be possible.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)