https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119170
--- Comment #8 from Alejandro Colomar <alx at kernel dot org> --- (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #7) > In particular, the subtle issues around semantics for bit-field expression > operands (see N2958) are definitely something that should be discussed in a > single place (i.e. the standard committee) rather than splitting the > discussion. One of the reasons I prefer discussion in GCC over the C Committee is that I think that an open discussion will get feedback from more compiler programmers that might be able to catch issues, while the committee mailing list is a closed list where design by committee might happen. I prefer an open development. The committee can always comment here if they want, while GCC contributors can't comment in the committee mailing list. Anyway, since the main feedback is from you at the moment, I'll reply wherever you send it. But I think it would be more useful if you sent the feedback here. On the other hand, when the semantics are refined, I think the name should not be left to the committee to decide. We made that mistake with _Nelementsof/_Lengthof/_Countof. I would like to avoid repeating that. From now on, whenever a name is contested in the committee (assuming semantics are accepted), I'm going to go all or nothing.
