This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Cc: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>,Dave Korn <dk at artimi dot com>, 'Roger Sayle' <roger at eyesopen dot com>, 'Joe Buck' <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:48:03 -0700
Subject: Re: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
References: <195B2A50-F60D-11D8-AF5A-003065BDF310@apple.com> <412BAEF5.6010302@codesourcery.com> <20040824234524.GA29526@redhat.com>

Richard Henderson wrote:

I'm going to sidestep the question of whether or not the compiler
should force the value into a valid range upon cast or assignment
and ask a different question.
Is TYPE_PRECISION (t) < GET_MODE_PRECISION (TYPE_MODE (t)) the correct representation?

Interesting idea. Are there any other cases where TYPE_PRECISION != GET_MODE_PRECISION? If not, we could eliminate the former...

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++
  - From: Richard Henderson

References:
- Re: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++
  - From: Mike Stump
- Re: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++
  - From: Richard Henderson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]