🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4hpkcv$gjc@info1.sdrc.com> larry.jones@sdrc.com "Larry Jones" writes:

>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.

There is a curious case here however. Lets say (with reference to 6.5.2.1)
I declare:

struct bit {
    long field : CHAR_BIT*sizeof(long) + 1;
};

This results in undefined behaviour due to the long type of the declarator.
However a constraint is also violated due to the field width. Is a diagnostic
still required in this case or can the compiler omit it as a form of undefined
behaviour?

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------