This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: typeof and bitfields
On Jan 13, 2005, at 6:46 PM, Neil Booth wrote:
Matt Austern wrote:-
I'm finding this discussion a little frustrating because I think there
is a good argument removing typeof for bit-field types but I haven't
seen that argument yet. I've seen a sort of summary of what that
argument might be, and I'm trying to fill in the gaps.
Were the semantics of typeof on bitfields documented? It raises all
kinds of questions. Such as do you get an integer type of a few bits,
or the declared type? What if the declared type is int but the
has type unsigned int?
I think you need to decide semantics first.
You're right, of course. I'd been assuming that we needed up update
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Typeof.html#Typeof if we decided that
removing typeof for bit-fields was correct, but you're right that we
need to update it in either case.
(Not that this is the only way in which typeof is underspecified, but
that's a rant for another day.)