This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: typeof and bitfields
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
| On Jan 14, 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
|
| > That is an argument for not returning an int. It is not an argument
| > for issueing error. Why not return int_with_2bits?
|
| Let's see...
I'm supportive of Joseph's patch.
The submitter in PR10333 clearly thought that you should get an
int_with_2bits type. Matt suggested that you should just get "int".
Ian suggested "char". I see good arguments for all of the choices. So,
there are no obvious semantics. Why define an extension that the
average user has only a 1/3 chance of understanding?
There's only one good reason, and Matt has already given it: backwards
compatibility. Fortunately, that compatibility is only with a GNU
extension used in a pretty obscure way, and there is an easy workaround
(don't use typeof; use the type of the bitfield instead) that will work
in most cases.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304