Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!thomson
From: thomson@utcsrgv.UUCP (Brian Thomson)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Signed bit fields
Message-ID: <1945@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Aug-83 12:10:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.1945
Posted: Fri Aug 12 12:10:04 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Aug-83 20:21:33 EDT
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 11

Our 4.1BSD C compiler supports signed bit fields, in variance
with my 1978 K&R book which states (p. 138) that "fields are unsigned".
Is this an example of language evolution in action, or can the
compiler be dismissed as an incorrect implementation of C?
I don't mean this as a religious question; rather, does the
C user community see signed bitfields becoming a de facto standard?
I believe (but am not sure) that the System III Vax compiler also
implements signed fields.
-- 
			Brian Thomson,	    CSRG Univ. of Toronto
			{linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,utzoo}!utcsrgv!thomson