typeof and bitfields

[Paul Schlie]

> From: Dave Korn <dave.korn@artimi.com>
>> From: Paul Schlie
>> ???
>> 6.5.2  Type specifiers
>> 6.5.2.1  Structure and union specifiers
>> ...
>>  Semantics
>>  ...
>>        [#10] A bit-field declaration with no declarator, but only a
>>        colon and a width, indicates an unnamed bit-field.92   As  a
>>        special  case  of  this, 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.
>> 
>> (or do you mean there's nothing implying it's acceptable to
>> be typedef'ed?
> 
>   No, he means that it may not have a name but it still has to have a type:
> the type specifier is not part of the declarator.  Check the grammar:

Thanks, understood.