Re: Clarification required about bitfields

See the WG14 reflector thread starting with , and the reference back to the analysis of the textual history in . Effectively, you can treat choices in this area as being implementation-defined or unspec

Re: Clarification required about bitfields

On December 23, 2015 9:28:32 AM GMT+01:00, Konstantin Vladimirov wrote: >Hi, > >Now LLVM and GCC essentially disagrees on simple test (minimized from >one of dejagnu tests): > >#include > >struct s { > unsigned long long u33: 33; > unsigned long long u40: 40; > unsigned long long u41: 41; >};