This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [PATCH] DEFAULT_SIGNED_BITFIELDS Macro
- To: "'Mark Mitchell'" <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: RE: [PATCH] DEFAULT_SIGNED_BITFIELDS Macro
- From: "Eric Raskin" <ehr at listworks dot com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:01:46 -0400
- Cc: <egcs-patches at egcs dot cygnus dot com>
- Reply-To: <ehr at listworks dot com>
Mark:
I agree with you. I'll be happy to skip this patch. The compiler distributed with the latest release of DG/UX is gcc 2.7.2. The current snapshot contains the following code in dgux.h, so Jeffrey and I assume that it's in the DG/UX distribution as well.
#undef OPTIMIZATION_OPTIONS
#define OPTIMIZATION_OPTIONS(LEVEL,SIZE) \
do { \
extern int flag_signed_bitfields; \
flag_signed_bitfields = 0; \
optimization_options (LEVEL,SIZE); \
} while (0)
I don't know why unsigned bit fields were ever set there in the first place. Maybe someone who knows the inside scoop from DG can tell us why this was inserted at all?
Eric Raskin
P.S. Regardless of the status of this patch, the corresponding patch for -funsigned-bitfields and the parser should still be applied.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-egcs-patches@egcs.cygnus.com
> [mailto:owner-egcs-patches@egcs.cygnus.com]On Behalf Of Mark Mitchell
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 11:32 AM
> To: ehr
> Cc: egcs-patches@egcs.cygnus.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] DEFAULT_SIGNED_BITFIELDS Macro
>
>
>
> I don't think that this patch is in the spirit of GNU CC, as recorded
> in the current manual. We could decide to change the manual, but I
> think it would be a not-insignificant change. Before doing so, I
> suggest that the steering committee think carefully about the
> rationale for doing so, and debate the manual section quoted below.
>