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: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++

From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
To: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
Cc: David Carlton <david dot carlton at sun dot com>,Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>,Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>,Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:25:38 -0700
Subject: Re: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++
References: <yf2u0usxlg5.fsf@kealia.sfbay.sun.com> <96CE33DE-F622-11D8-AF5A-003065BDF310@apple.com> <20040824162316.A20011@synopsys.com>

> [ here E is a four-valued enum, 0,1,2,3 ]
> 
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 04:09:02PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> > (E)n, where n is an int with value, say of 7, is permitted by the 
> > standard to take on the value 7.  This is because the text of the 
> > standard says the value is unspecified.  7 is a unspecified value, 
> > honest.

I wrote:
> I agree with you so far; (E)n might be 7.

Rather, I should say that at this point, the implementation might have
a 7 in the storage allocated for (E)n.  I'll remain agnostic on the
question of what "might be" might be.

References:
- Re: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++
  - From: David Carlton
- Re: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++
  - From: Mike Stump
- Re: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++
  - From: Joe Buck

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