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

-- 
David Laight: david@l8s.co.uk