Re: Bit-field sizes

Article View: comp.std.c

Article #4903

#4903

From: Larry Jones
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 20:09

12 lines
1009 bytes

In article <827022001snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>, Lawrence Kirby <fred@genesis.demon.co.uk> writes:
> 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?

That question was asked in an early Defect Report; the diagnostic is
still required.
----
Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
larry.jones@sdrc.com
Oh yeah?  You just wait! -- Calvin

Technical Details

Message-ID: <4ihri1$4qk@info1.sdrc.com>

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

References: <nzRPxQ9ytZZA084yn@csn.net> <4hkgds$bbh@info1.sdrc.com> <827022001snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>

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: 17 Mar 1996 20:09:37 GMT
Organization: SDRC Engineering Services
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4ihri1$4qk@info1.sdrc.com>
References: <nzRPxQ9ytZZA084yn@csn.net> <4hkgds$bbh@info1.sdrc.com> <827022001snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.sdrc.com
Originator: scjones@thor

Reply to Parent Message