Re: Bit-field sizes

Article View: comp.std.c

Article #4871

#4871

From: Larry Jones
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 15:40

15 lines
1181 bytes

In article <4ho846$g2d@usenet.pa.dec.com>, diamond@tbj.dec.com (Norman Diamond) writes:
> In article <4hn3mg$c9v@info1.sdrc.com>, larry.jones@sdrc.com (Larry Jones) writes:
> >Such implementations presumably extend the integral promotion rules in
> >the obvious fashion as well in order to eliminate the need for casts.
> 
> They cannot.  As Thad Smith's original posting pointed out, the standard
> prohibits this extension.

Sure they can -- once you've declared a bit-field with a non-conforming
type you've invoked undefined behavior and the compiler is at liberty to
do anything it likes from then on.
----
Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
larry.jones@sdrc.com
I wonder what's on TV now. -- Calvin

Technical Details

Message-ID: <4hpkcv$gjc@info1.sdrc.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sdrc.com!thor!scjones

References: <nzRPxQ9ytZZA084yn@csn.net> <4hkgds$bbh@info1.sdrc.com> <4ho846$g2d@usenet.pa.dec.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sdrc.com!thor!scjones
From: larry.jones@sdrc.com (Larry Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Bit-field sizes
Date: 8 Mar 1996 15:40:15 GMT
Organization: SDRC Engineering Services
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4hpkcv$gjc@info1.sdrc.com>
References: <nzRPxQ9ytZZA084yn@csn.net> <4hkgds$bbh@info1.sdrc.com> <4ho846$g2d@usenet.pa.dec.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.sdrc.com
Originator: scjones@thor

Reply to Parent Message