Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 23:26:06 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Stefan Farfeleder <stefan@fafoe.dyndns.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/fxp if_fxpreg.h Message-ID: <20030406230343.N627@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20030406083608.754DB3FC4@fafoe.dyndns.org> References: <200304052346.h35Nkwoi037742@repoman.freebsd.org> <20030406083608.754DB3FC4@fafoe.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, Stefan Farfeleder wrote: > On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 02:16:07PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > > This gives undefined behaviour and thus produces random code if it is > > compiled by a C compiler (unless Bool_t happens to be u_int8_t). From > > n869.txt: > > > > [#8] A bit-field shall have a type that is a qualified or > > unqualified version of _Bool, signed int, or unsigned int. > ... > FYI, the final standard says > > 4 A bit-field shall have a type that is a qualified or unqualified version of _Bool, signed > int, unsigned int, or some other implementation-defined type. > > and moved it from the Semantics to the Constraints section, so a C > compiler not supporting u_int8_t has to issue at least a diagnostic > before producing random code :) :-). The wording seems a bit fuzzy. Is there a way for applications to determine what the implementation-defined type(s) are? Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030406230343.N627>