From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10169 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2003 08:16:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10154 invoked by uid 71); 20 Feb 2003 08:16:01 -0000 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030220081601.10153.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "Joseph S. Myers" Subject: Re: middle-end/9725: Invalid dependency determination Reply-To: "Joseph S. Myers" X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00975.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR middle-end/9725; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Jan Beulich Cc: , , , Subject: Re: middle-end/9725: Invalid dependency determination Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:07:28 +0000 (GMT) On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Jan Beulich wrote: > The structure does include two fields of type 'unsigned' (the fact that > they are bit fields doesn't alter their type as I view it). And, as It does alter their type; the standard is clear on this (and there are C90 DRs confirming it). (There are bugs in GCC relating to the types of bit-fields; Neil Booth had a patch for them but it was reverted because of problems with debug info generation.) -- Joseph S. Myers jsm28@cam.ac.uk