typeof and bitfields

[Neil Booth]

Matt Austern wrote:-

> I'm finding this discussion a little frustrating because I think there 
> is a good argument removing typeof for bit-field types but I haven't 
> seen that argument yet.  I've seen a sort of summary of what that 
> argument might be, and I'm trying to fill in the gaps.

Were the semantics of typeof on bitfields documented?  It raises all
kinds of questions.  Such as do you get an integer type of a few bits,
or the declared type?  What if the declared type is int but the bitfield
has type unsigned int?

I think you need to decide semantics first.

Neil.