------- Additional Comments From jason at redhat dot com 2005-03-08 06:47 ------- Subject: Re: [PR c++/20280] hoist indirect_ref out of addressable cond_exprs
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:26:04 -0800, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your reading is logical, but it depends on exactly what "lvalue for a > bit-field" means. (Note that it does not say "lvalue *is* a bit-field"; it > says "lvalue *for* a bit-field".) In fact, there's a core issue for exactly that question; Steve's proposed wording clarifies that these expressions are lvalues for a bit-field. Jason -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20280
