This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: typeof and bitfields
Mark Mitchell <email@example.com> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Mark Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
| > | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | > Alexandre Oliva <email@example.com> writes:
| > | > | On Jan 14, 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
| > | > wrote:
| > | > | | > That is an argument for not returning an int. It is not an
| > | > argument
| > | > | > for issueing error. Why not return int_with_2bits?
| > | > | | Let's see...
| > | | I'm supportive of Joseph's patch.
| > | | The submitter in PR10333 clearly thought that you should get an
| > | int_with_2bits type. Matt suggested that you should just get
| > | "int". Ian suggested "char". I see good arguments for all of the
| > | choices. So, there are no obvious semantics. Why define an extension
| > | that the average user has only a 1/3 chance of understanding?
| > If you take that observation seriously, then you should remove nearly
| > all extensions plus at least half of standard language semantics.
| That's a reduction-to-absurdity argument. The standard language
I don't care whatever you name; I'd much prefer you look at the issue
instead trying to put names on arguments.