This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- Cc: Dave Korn <dk at artimi dot com>, "'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, "'Joe Buck'" <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- Date: 27 Aug 2004 03:26:58 +0200
- Subject: Re: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <NUTMEGjQaNT9ldvyr1U00000f4d@NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM><A3CEAA2E-F6F5-11D8-8103-000393941EE6@apple.com>
Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com> writes:
| 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.
After exchange on the core reflector, John Spicer came to the
agreement that it is the enumeration value that is unspecified.
-- Gaby