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: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
To: Dave Korn <dk at artimi dot com>
Cc: "'Roger Sayle'" <roger at eyesopen dot com>, "'David Carlton'" <david dot carlton at sun dot com>, "'Mark Mitchell'" <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, "'Gabriel Dos Reis'" <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, "'Joe Buck'" <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:19:48 -0700
Subject: Re: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++
References: <NUTMEGjQaNT9ldvyr1U00000f4d@NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>

On Aug 25, 2004, at 4:26 AM, Dave Korn wrote:

  I think this post missed the distinction between unspecified and
undefined.

No.

I think this post makes it clear.

Disagree.

This post conflates the two concepts. If the behaviour was *undefined*,

It's not, so we dont' have to consider that case.

But when the behaviour is merely *unspecified*, you know that the bool *MUST* be true or false

Disagree.

merely that the standard doesn't specify which, and by analogy, the enum *MUST* be in-range

Disagree.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

References:
- RE: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++
  - From: Dave Korn

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