--- Comment #12 from runipg at broadcom dot com 2010-09-03 21:12 ---
Subject: Re: Bug with anonymous unions and bit-fields
Okay, I guess I was confused by "struct or union" semantics. Thanks!
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc do
--- Comment #10 from runipg at broadcom dot com 2010-09-03 19:19 ---
Subject: Re: Bug with anonymous unions and bit-fields
Your suggestion works:
struct bfc {
union {
struct {
unsigned int a : 1,
b : 4
--- Comment #9 from runipg at broadcom dot com 2010-09-03 14:45 ---
Subject: Re: Bug with anonymous unions and bit-fields
Thank you so much. You can close this bug if you wish.
-Runip
On 03-Sep-2010, at 3:47 AM, paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
wrote:
>
>
> --
--- Comment #7 from runipg at broadcom dot com 2010-09-03 03:31 ---
Subject: Re: Bug with anonymous unions and bit-fields
Wow, So there is a diff inside and outside a struct?
This is very counter-intuitive but I am to accept your explanation if that's
what the language
--- Comment #3 from runipg at broadcom dot com 2010-09-03 01:03 ---
Subject: Re: Bug with anonymous unions and bit-fields
That was fast and interesting that two other compilers behave the same.
Unfortunately I don't have access to any other compiler. I am simply
befuddled b
