This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: typeof and bitfields
- From: Paul Schlie <schlie at comcast dot net>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>,Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>,Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>,Dave Korn <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>,'Ian Lance Taylor' <ian at airs dot com>,'Neil Booth' <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>,'Matt Austern' <austern at apple dot com>,'Andrew Pinski' <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:04:15 -0500
- Subject: Re: typeof and bitfields
> From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
> Subject: Re: typeof and bitfields
>
> Paul Schlie <schlie@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> (which would seem to support the notion that: typedef unsigned:4 ubf_4
>
> The syntax of C does not allow :4 at this place.
Understand that it's not formally supported in C's syntax specification, but
curiously nor is the definition of struct { :3; }, although the text seems
to implies it defines a struct containing an 3-bit unnamed (and unspecified)
integer type?
So by implication would typedef struct { BF_3:3 } be required syntactically
to define a 3-bit (unspecifed) bit-field type which may then be used to
subsequently declare a named member: struct { BF_3 x; } ?