Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 11:48:29 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <8635t7ayki.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <sastag$a33$1@solani.org> <86fsx8bh88.fsf@linuxsc.com> <savtku$6a6$1@solani.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5f9785b3afd09fb507884e20b2dfc5bb"; logging-data="30125"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19I8/Pk8yt0UQuDrYeEPoF+A+9lY0C1JWM="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cbY5k9jQsKz/HMSZArfIVSCrYcU= sha1:0az/3V+uwltegIvhhaBaB1CrcbE=
Xref: csiph.com comp.std.c:6243

Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> writes:

> Am 23.06.21 um 19:53 schrieb Tim Rentsch:
>
>> Bit-fields of types signed and unsigned may use widths up to the
>> widths of intmax_t and uintmax_t, respectively.
>
> WG14 usually doesn't like to use the same syntax as C++ but with a
> different meaning.
> AFAIK, in C++, you can have an int bit-field wider than int (or whatever
> else the type is), but the upper bits then are padding bits.

The obvious answer is to ask the C++ committee to change their
silly rule.  And if they don't want to change it, just ignore it;
the C++ rule is already incompatible with C, now it will just be
incompatible in a different way.  The gap between C and C++ has
increased to the point where they should be treated as separate
and independent languages.