🚀 go-pugleaf

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

>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?

If I understand correctly, a technical corrigendum requires that a
diagnostic be issued for a translation unit which violates any syntax
rule or constraint, even if violations of other clauses occur "earlier"
in the translation unit.

From one point of view, I am glad to see that requirement.  From a
different point of view, I fear that even highest quality implementations
are now forced to issue a blanket warning at the beginning of translation.
--
 <<  If this were the company's opinion, I would not be allowed to post it.  >>
"I paid money for this car, I pay taxes for vehicle registration and a driver's
license, so I can drive in any lane I want, and no innocent victim gets to call
the cops just 'cause the lane's not goin' the same direction as me" - J Spammer