typeof and bitfields

[Matt Austern]

On Jan 13, 2005, at 6:46 PM, Neil Booth wrote:

> 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.

You're right, of course.  I'd been assuming that we needed up update 
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Typeof.html#Typeof if we decided that 
removing typeof for bit-fields was correct, but you're right that we 
need to update it in either case.

(Not that this is the only way in which typeof is underspecified, but 
that's a rant for another day.)

			--Matt