Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!decvax!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Initialized bitfileds - help me read
Message-ID: <12084@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Date: 17 Mar 89 00:45:25 GMT
References: <13363@steinmetz.ge.com> <1989Mar15.165019.21562@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 14

In <1989Mar15.165019.21562@utzoo.uucp> utzoo!henry (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In <13363@steinmetz.ge.com> crdos1!davidsen (bill davidsen) writes:
>>Are there any *standard* caveats about bitfield initialization? ...
>
>One:  many old compilers won't do it, or don't do it correctly.

Since Bill posted to comp.std.c and referenced the (d)pANS, I presume that old
(in the sense of pre-ANSI) compilers are not the issue.  On the other hand,
since he didn't post some sample code and output, I'm also not sure what the
problem is.  The only such bitfield confusion I know of offhand concerns the
rules for structs that have unnamed bitfields.  Is that what we're talking
about?

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint