On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
> 2014-01-06 Marek Polacek
>
> PR c/57773
> * doc/implement-c.texi: Mention that other integer types are
> permitted as bit-field types in strictly conforming mode.
> c/
> * c-decl.c (check_bitfield_type_and_width): Warn for impl
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 05:17:28PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> Implementation-defined behavior is documented in implement-c.texi, so this
> patch is incomplete as it doesn't update that file where it says:
>
> No other types are permitted in strictly conforming mode.
> @c Would it be
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
> As Paul Eggert says in the PR, we shouldn't warn for enum bit-fields
> in C99/C11 mode. C11 6.7.2.1 (5) says "A bit-field shall have a type
> that is a qualified or unqualified version of _Bool, signed int,
> unsigned int, or some other implementation-de
As Paul Eggert says in the PR, we shouldn't warn for enum bit-fields
in C99/C11 mode. C11 6.7.2.1 (5) says "A bit-field shall have a type
that is a qualified or unqualified version of _Bool, signed int,
unsigned int, or some other implementation-defined type.", so ISTM
that enum bit-fields should
