On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, Mike Stump wrote: > On Dec 5, 2005, at 9:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Oh right, what I really meant was 'char' instead of 'long'. > > In fact I just took the type from the referenced article. Sorry for that. > > > > So am I right that the compiler should distinguish between char, signed char > > and unsigned char in the proposed way? > > Good question. I don't believe so: > > [#5] Each of the comma-separated sets designates the same > type, except that for bit-fields, it is implementation- > defined whether the specifier int designates the same type > as signed int or the same type as unsigned int. > > [ note, I have a feeling they meant char, not int, I suspect someone might be > able to provide a pointer to a DR for this. ]
Bringing bit-fields into the matter is just confusing things since you can't have pointers to bit-fields, but anyway char is not in a comma-separated set with signed char or unsigned char and for DR#315 it was proposed to say that whether char bit-fields have the same signedness as non-bit-fields is unspecified. -- Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CodeSourcery mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)
