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: David Carlton <david dot carlton at sun dot com>, Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>, Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 25 Aug 2004 04:04:13 +0200
- Subject: Re: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <B676FCCD-F637-11D8-AF5A-003065BDF310@apple.com>
Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com> writes:
| On Tuesday, August 24, 2004, at 05:56 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | The above program violates no rules of C++. The value printed is
| > | either specified, or unspecified. Which do you think it is, and if
| > | specified, which value is printed?
| >
| > you forgot the option implementation-defined, which actually is the
| > case here.
|
| Ok, you say implementation-defined, now cite the rule that makes this
| so.
Oh that one is easy. It is about the value representation (of the
underlying integer type). 3.9/4.
Do you feel like this is the most important aspect of the enum question?
I don't think so, but for the sake of argument, I don't mind discussing
this with you.
-- Gaby