This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, David Carlton <david dot carlton at sun dot com>, Dave Korn <dk at artimi dot com>, "'Roger Sayle'" <roger at eyesopen dot com>, "'Joe Buck'" <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 25 Aug 2004 02:24:19 +0200
- Subject: Re: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <2701C373-F626-11D8-AF5A-003065BDF310@apple.com>
Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com> writes:
| On Tuesday, August 24, 2004, at 02:49 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
| >> Grrr... It _is_ permitted. The standard is perfectly clean on
| >> this issue.
| >
| > Pragmatically, I'd say that if there's this much disagreement among
| > people who know the standard very well
|
| Permitted to me means must be compiled by the compiler. The program
| must be compiled. If you all mean something different by the word
| permitted, then, I'd ask you to use some other terminology.
You;re right that the program should be accepted by the compiler
because it violates no diagnosable rules.
I believe the issue is whether the value actually stored in the enum
object should be 7. That is where I was understanding "permitted"
being used.
-- Gaby