From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Derek M Jones Subject: Re: [RFC] potential DR in handling of signed int and unholy mess in our and gcc implementations Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:10:47 +0000 Message-ID: <49C23647.5030209@knosof.co.uk> References: <20090319013358.GZ28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from queueout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.56]:19520 "EHLO queueout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752375AbZCSM1p (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:27:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090319013358.GZ28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Al Viro Cc: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org Al, > First of all, C99 has rather unpleasant inconsistency between > 6.7.2p5 and footnote in 6.7.2.1p9. According to the former, It is not really an inconsistency, one set of wording does not say something about a particular case. > However, the footnote in 6.7.2.1p9 says > "As specified in 6.7.2 above, if the actual type specifier > used is int or a typedef-name defined as int, then it is > implementation-defined whether the bit-field is signed or unsigned." Ok, so the wording in 7.6.2 does not mention the typedef case. At most this is an editorial change to the Standard. -- Derek M. Jones tel: +44 (0) 1252 520 667 Knowledge Software Ltd mailto:derek@knosof.co.uk Source code analysis http://www.knosof.co.uk