Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2021 09:23:47 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 23 Message-ID: <86im1i87e4.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <86fsx8bh88.fsf@linuxsc.com> <8635t7ayki.fsf@linuxsc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e13df7ffef68eec8a0b0a92150d2f271"; logging-data="2695"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FPG4tjwYYWD2OBtYn2mmbGu5xPS3Vbug=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:fdkcNLkRA2vgvfPg6OnDIRv6xQQ= sha1:FaJE8ysETK8RIUQuevmoq2oI4G0= Xref: csiph.com comp.std.c:6267 Philipp Klaus Krause writes: > Am 24.06.21 um 20:48 schrieb Tim Rentsch: > >> 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. > > WG14 and WG21 try to keep the common subset compatible, especially if it > is something that might appear in headers (for other code this matters > less - after all non-header source is usually either C or C++, but > headers are commonly shared). > And bit-fields are in struct declarations which are often in headers. If WG21 is interested in keeping the common subset compatible, then they should change their silly rule to something more sensible, such as the rule I suggested. ISTM that the C++ folks always want the C standard to change to accommodate them, but aren't all that interested in reciprocating. It's time for that to change. And if they aren't willing to change, screw 'em. You may quote me.