Subject: Re: Compilation / toolchain trouble
To: None <email@example.com>
From: David Laight <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/19/2002 17:22:53
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 05:05:18PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, David Laight wrote:
> > : Why not add two lines to make it:
> > : ___rtx_code_max = 16383,
> > : ___rtx_code_min = -1,
> > : That should stretch the enum to 16 bits...
> > However, the compiler shouldn't be complaining that we explicitly reserve
> > *more* space than is needed to store the enum values. (Less space might be
> > a problem, but not more.)
> While C++ allows you to create a bit-field that is larger than the base
> type, C does not. However, one could argue that in the case of a packed
> enum that an excpetion could be made (up to the size that it would take if
> it were not packed).
Especially since enum bit fields are not part of C.
So this is all up to gcc...
Indeed, is using gcc specific code at all a good idea?
David Laight: email@example.com