On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 09:47:10AM +0200, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > Hello, > > I just remembered this thing from an embedded 16bit CPU. > > Why would you do > unsigned char XXX :1 > and not > unsigned int XXX :1 > > I think the latter may benefit code size (a tiny bit) > because it avoids an integer promotion, at least on some platforms.
unsigned char is directly incorrect and a gnu extension. Bitfields must be integers o bool (since c99). You can see it with 'gcc -std=c99 -pedantic'. Best regards,
