Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? |
| Date | 2016-09-15 16:01 -0700 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <lnbmzo3gzg.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <ln8tuu5h4x.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <kfn1t0lhwzn.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <f370cc9a-7f45-49f7-b678-470534b84297@googlegroups.com> <lnk2ec3n8e.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <8a299630-42f9-4e6c-bc75-c0327a9b166e@googlegroups.com> |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 1:49:56 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> supercat writes:
>> > I consider it unfortunate that the authors of the Standard seem averse to
>> > the idea of giving implementations the freedom to accept or reject certain
>> > syntactic forms at their leisure. That would seem to me the best way to
>> > handle constructs that may or may not have enough value to justify making
>> > compiler writers support them. Whether or not the ability to use an
>> > enum bitfield would be sufficiently valuable as to mandate that
>> > implementations must support it, I see nothing to be gained by suggesting
>> > that implementers who want to support it, shouldn't.
>>
>> Congratulations, you have your wish.
>>
>> N1570 6.7.2.1p5:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Implementations are free to accept bit-fields of enumerated types, and
>> are not required to diagnose them. (One example: gcc 6.2.0 accepts an
>> enumerated bit field and doesn't warn about it even with "-std=c11
>> -pedantic -Wall -Wextra".)
>
> Given:
>
> enum foo { boz,baz; };
>
> is the type "foo" defined by the implementation or by user code? Does
> anything in the Standard specify that the phrase "Implementation-Defined
> type" would be applicable to such an enum?
My interpretation (and apparently that of the authors of gcc)
is that the implementation is free to specify that bit-fields may
be of enumerated types. The phrase "implementation-defined type"
doesn't mean that the type itself is necessarily defined by the
implementation. It means that the implementation defines which
types are permitted.
(Of course an implementation is also free to reject enumerated
bit-fields.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? thiago.adams@gmail.com - 2016-09-12 13:24 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-12 21:56 +0100
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-12 15:59 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-13 16:05 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-13 18:17 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-14 01:20 +0100
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-14 03:59 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-09-14 17:31 +0100
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 09:49 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 11:45 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2016-09-14 14:13 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 16:26 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-09-12 17:11 -0400
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-13 15:55 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-13 18:08 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-14 03:56 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 07:58 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-14 19:39 +0100
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 13:52 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-15 00:53 +0100
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 17:04 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 20:52 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 19:26 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 19:04 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 14:21 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 16:23 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 17:06 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 20:45 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-14 22:12 -0400
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-15 12:37 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 09:35 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 00:47 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 22:02 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 09:56 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-16 07:34 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 20:31 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-16 12:32 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-17 23:30 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-15 18:25 +0100
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 12:35 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 00:51 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 17:02 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-16 19:23 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-17 23:35 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 10:40 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 10:01 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 11:35 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 23:51 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-15 15:14 -0400
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-15 16:08 +1200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-15 12:46 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 09:37 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 00:53 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 21:45 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-16 06:32 +0100
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 09:59 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-16 11:00 +0100
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 04:46 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-16 12:58 +0100
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-16 12:06 +0000
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 05:13 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-16 10:47 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-16 10:46 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 10:02 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-15 11:42 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 10:19 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-16 08:06 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 20:51 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 11:56 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-22 22:38 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-14 11:42 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 14:02 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-15 10:51 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 11:18 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-15 13:46 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 13:10 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-15 16:01 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-15 13:40 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-16 07:21 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 07:37 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 20:55 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-16 14:43 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-16 15:36 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-17 23:45 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-17 17:14 -0700
csiph-web