From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9323 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2004 16:01:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 9315 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2004 16:01:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Sep 2004 16:01:13 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA01618; Fri, 24 Sep 04 12:04:34 EDT Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:43:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10409241604.AA01618@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: jsm@polyomino.org.uk Subject: Re: SRA problem with uninitialzed fields Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg01431.txt.bz2 C++ enums were one case of restricted-precision types for which this masking was not wanted, but for now and until a C++ DR about this is resolved (see the long discussions on the gcc list last month) they don't have the restricted precision. But what about the C test case I sent? Isn't that valid C++ also and wouldn't it have the problem I mentioned if that hook is false?