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 00:34:27 +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:
> 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...
Even with bit-fields of width 1, some of the issues still arise of whether
they act like _Bool or like unsigned:1. Every question in my pre-DR can
be phrased in terms which still make sense with a bit-field of width 1
(changing "a.x = 3;" to "a.x = 2;" which might put 1 or 0 in a _Bool:1
bit-field; the other examples work unchanged). So actually it seems we
need both DRs.
--
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)