OK.
Jason
Hi,
On 05/24/2013 06:12 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/24/2013 10:50 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ || ((TREE_CODE (type) == ENUMERAL_TYPE
+&& (tree_int_cst_lt
+(TYPE_SIZE (ENUM_UNDERLYING_TYPE (type)), w)))
+ || (TREE_CODE (type) == BOOLEAN_TYPE
+
On 05/24/2013 10:50 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ || ((TREE_CODE (type) == ENUMERAL_TYPE
+ && (tree_int_cst_lt
+ (TYPE_SIZE (ENUM_UNDERLYING_TYPE (type)), w)))
+ || (TREE_CODE (type) == BOOLEAN_TYPE
+ && tree_
Hi,
On 05/24/2013 03:36 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Why would we want to pedwarn? As far as I can tell, the standard
doesn't say this is ill-formed. 9.6 says,
"The value of the integral constant expression may be larger than the
number of bits in the object representation (3.9) of the bit-fiel
Why would we want to pedwarn? As far as I can tell, the standard
doesn't say this is ill-formed. 9.6 says,
"The value of the integral constant expression may be larger than the
number of bits in the object representation (3.9) of the bit-field’s
type; in such cases the extra bits are used as
Hi,
I think we can resolve this very old issue too: we don't warn at all for
bitfields of size exceeding the type when it's bool or enum. I have no
idea why historically we decided to not do that, but certainly all the
modern compilers I have at hand do warn, by default, thus it seems safe
to
