Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!hubcap!mjs
From: mjs@hubcap.clemson.edu (M. J. Saltzman)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Harbison & Steele (was: Re: Bitfields in unions)
Summary: Errata?
Message-ID: <1991Apr23.212105.28138@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 23 Apr 91 21:21:05 GMT
References: <carbide@dce.ie> <680@taumet.com> <72969@brunix.UUCP>
Organization: Clemson University
Lines: 21

In article <72969@brunix.UUCP> gvr@cs.brown.edu (George V. Reilly) writes:
>In article <680@taumet.com> steve@taumet.com (Stephen Clamage) writes:
>+ The ANSI C standard says explicitly that a union may contain a bitfield.
>
>Well, that's another thing that Harbison & Steele III have got wrong,
>then.  On p. 128, it says:
>	The syntax for defining components [in unions] is the same
>	as that used for structures, except that bit fields are
>	not permitted in unions.

Sorry to bother you all, but does anyone have a list of errata for
H&S?  Is it really that bad?  Are there any other good references
(short of the standard itself) for day-to-day use?

E-mail is fine, I don't want to take up more bandwidth than I already
have.

Thanks very much.

		Matthew Saltzman
		mjs@clemson.edu