This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: c: Bitfield fixes for PRs 3325, 3326

Graham Stott <grahams@redhat.com> writes:

> Neil,
>
> I don't have a copy of the C standards handy but I thought anonymous
> zero width bit-fields were valid and useful (i.e. causes next bit-field
> to be located on next boundary)

You remember correctly , 6.7.2.1 specifies:

       [#11] A bit-field declaration with no declarator, but only a
       colon and a width, indicates an unnamed bit-field.105)  As a
       special case, a bit-field structure member with a width of 0
       indicates that no further bit-field is to be packed into the
       unit in which the previous bit-field, if any, was placed.

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]