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: 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
-
- 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
-