home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: 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$g2d@usenet.pa.dec.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.sdrc.com
- Originator: scjones@thor
-
- In article <4ho846$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
-