This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: typeof and bitfields
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Paul Schlie <schlie at comcast dot net>
- Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, 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: 18 Jan 2005 18:16:50 +0100
- Subject: Re: typeof and bitfields
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <BE12ABBF.8ADD%schlie@comcast.net>
Paul Schlie <schlie@comcast.net> writes:
| 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; } ?
I think the issue of whether typedef unsigned :3 BF should be
allowed is largely independent of typeof on bit-field.
True there are various semantics to choose from and this is not
mathematics; but chosing to spit an error seems to be the most
annoyingly useless semantics.
-- Gaby