From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29442 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2004 22:06:04 -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 29363 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2004 22:05:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Sep 2004 22:05:59 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB03F2986; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 01118-02-8; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:05:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (hoosic.gnat.com [205.232.38.102]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9272CF2922; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:05:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <41549A41.2010906@gnat.com> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:38:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: Richard Kenner , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: SRA problem with uninitialzed fields References: <10409241623.AA01865@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nile.gnat.com X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg01456.txt.bz2 Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Richard Kenner wrote: > C++ generates the following for this testcase, which includes the mask. > In accordance with the differences between how the C and C++ standards > define bit-fields, it doesn't use the reduced-width types. I am completely puzzled as to what reduced-width types have to do with this example at the C++ semantic level, or are you just making a comment about the internal implementation and why it happens to work for C++ and not for C (as far as I can see these programs have identical semantics in C and C++)