Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.std.c |
| Subject | Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long |
| Date | 2021-06-23 00:39 -0700 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <87tulpvxlj.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> (permalink) |
| References | <sastag$a33$1@solani.org> <sasuvm$t0r$1@dont-email.me> <8735t9yda4.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <sauk5d$40k$1@solani.org> |
Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> writes:
> Am 22.06.21 um 20:17 schrieb Keith Thompson:
>>>
>>> But I have a lot more use of smaller integer types. And I use
>>> enumerated types in bitfields too, though these usually require a
>>> minimum size matching "int" (unless you use compiler-specific extensions
>>> to change that).
>>>
>>> I would suggest that it is pointless to add to the list of types
>>> mandated in the C standard here. Rather, it should simply say that a
>>> bit-field shall have "an integer type". That covers all sizes, shorter
>>> than int as well as longer, signed as well as unsigned. After all,
>>> pretty much any serious modern C compiler will already support all
>>> integer types here.
>>>
>>> And I would also be even happier with "an integer type or enumerated type".
>>
>> I agree. If you're going to mandate support for additional types, why
>> not go all the way?
>
> I am worried that support for types smaller than int¹ and signed types²
> could be controversial. So I'm trying to go for the two types that seem
> most useful, most used, and, I hope, least controversial.
>
> ¹ People might disagree on questions of type and promotion.
> ² People might disagree on signed / unsigned for plain types and on
> support for 1-bit bit-fields.
>
> Philipp
>
> P.S.: Even today, people disagree on some questions on the type of
> bit-fields. Even implementations do (e.g. GCC vs. clang). And some say
> that the standard is intentionally ambiguous to make the type
> essentially implementation-defined.
>
> P.P.S.: Thanks to everyone for the comments on wording.
Are there any implementations that support bit fields of types other
than the required ones that *don't* support them for all integer types?
I dislike arbitrary restrictions, especially if most implementations
won't impose those restrictions anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if all
implementations that support non-standard bit field types do so
consistently.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
Back to comp.std.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-06-22 16:49 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-22 17:18 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-22 11:17 -0700
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-06-23 08:25 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-23 08:59 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-06-23 13:12 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-23 14:14 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-06-23 17:45 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-23 10:22 -0700
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-06-23 19:52 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-23 16:12 -0700
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-24 10:41 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-24 10:32 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-23 00:39 -0700
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-06-23 13:22 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-06-23 18:27 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-06-23 10:53 -0700
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-06-23 20:13 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-06-24 11:48 -0700
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-24 12:23 -0700
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-24 22:40 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-07-10 09:13 -0700
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-06-24 22:14 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-07-10 09:23 -0700
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-24 11:02 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-24 11:06 -0700
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-24 23:11 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-24 15:16 -0700
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-25 10:43 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-25 02:02 -0700
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-25 13:54 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-25 13:07 +0100
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-25 15:17 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-25 08:22 -0700
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-25 18:22 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-25 13:28 -0700
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-25 19:12 +0100
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-07-10 08:58 -0700
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-25 08:09 -0700
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-06-25 14:43 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-25 15:33 +0200
Re: bit-fields of type unsigned long and unsigned long long Jakob Bohm <jb-usenet@wisemo.com.invalid> - 2021-07-06 23:18 +0200
csiph-web