This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: patch - gcc-4.0 not c99 conforming when assigning scalar values to boolean bitfields
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- Cc: Fariborz Jahanian <fjahanian at apple dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 00:19:20 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: patch - gcc-4.0 not c99 conforming when assigning scalar values to boolean bitfields
- References: <26E1AC94-A231-11D9-B8B3-000393B9ED88@apple.com> <m2vf77h1u4.fsf@greed.local> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0503312301370.3529@digraph.polyomino.org.uk><m2d5tfgxyc.fsf@greed.local>
On Fri, 31 Mar 2005, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> Huh! Yes, it does say that. That would certainly solve this problem.
>
> Do we want to simply do what TC2 says? It's not like oversized _Bool
> bitfields are very useful, and it'll save a DR...
I think a DR is needed in any case before the relevant proprietary
testsuite test can be marked DISPUTED. I don't think we considered _Bool
bit-fields when producing DR#262 (it was one of 36 DRs considered at a
single UK C Panel meeting, of which we sent 33 to WG14 - we only discussed
those someone found controversial). N970 just says "Accept suggested TC."
on that DR, suggesting it was thought completely straightforward and
no-one noticed the _Bool bit-field interaction in the subsequent
discussion of _Bool bit-fields. I'll raise the question with the
reflector and produce a DR as necessary.
--
Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)