This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: typeof and bitfields


Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:

| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
| > | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | > Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
| > | > | On Jan 14, 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
| > | > 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.

-- Gaby


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]