https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luigighiron at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mital at mitalashok dot co.uk
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/7a5ec7af-fdbf-470f-9414-bf4110331...@ventanamicro.com/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
FWIW C++ Core DR 739 is a DR against C++11 and C++98, so should be considered
to apply pre-C++14 too.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#739
This has no bearing on the C behaviou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294
--- Comment #7 from Rich Felker ---
Thanks. I think between footnote 125 and DR#315 the intent is clear and this
bug report stands as written.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The response to C99 DR#315 says that for all the types not specifying
"signed" or "unsigned" explicitly, if an implementation accepts them as
bit-field types it's implementation-defined wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294
--- Comment #5 from Rich Felker ---
Reading the relevant part of the standard in more detail, it seems like it's a
GCC bug that GCC is applying the exception for plain int to typedefs. ΒΆ5:
"Each of the comma-separated multisets designates the sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294
--- Comment #4 from Rich Felker ---
Further examination shows that this GCC feature (-funsigned-bitfields) is
actually buggy/non-conforming. It changes the default signedness of all integer
types in bitfields, not just plain int. This behavior se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
FWIW, current glibc already uses signed int for int32_t (via using it for
__int32_t which is used to define int32_t), entirely as an accident
following a header refactoring, but not for oth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294
--- Comment #2 from Rich Felker ---
I agree it's not clear if there's a conformance distinction or just a QoI
issue, but it seems really unfortunate for int32_t not to be usable in
bitfields if -funsigned-bitfields might be passed to GCC, since t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I'm not aware of a standard requirement not to use plain int for int32_t
(even with unsigned bit-fields), though it may well be useful to make the
signedness explicit. After all, int is a
11 matches
Mail list logo
