Gcc Error: Width Of Exceed Its Type
I do remember I was not happy being forced to use 2 bits for holding a boolean. Reported by: Martin Michlmayr
Already have an account? Thanks. Acknowledgement sent to Martin Michlmayr
Full text and rfc822 format available. Please report at https://github.com/TrustInSoft/tis-interpreter/issues 😄 1 Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Comment 15 Janis Johnson 2005-01-28 01:37:15 UTC Created attachment 8086 [details] New testcase in a single source file.
No more, the house is full! Asking help about a typedef expression What Happened to TK-421? Notification sent to Martin Michlmayr
A more precise explanation is in What is zero-width bit field. The anonymous bit field :0 causes the following bit field to be allocated into a distinct int. I'll look into this to find out why this change was introduced. https://github.com/TrustInSoft/tis-interpreter/issues/59 The same issue explains the other tests.
They are not "two bytes", nothing in the code says that. share|improve this answer answered Sep 9 '13 at 14:00 user2760751 1463 add a comment| Your Answer draft saved draft discarded Sign up or log in Sign up using Google Sign Browse other questions tagged c structure or ask your own question. The mainline and 3.4-branch compilers are with yesterday's CVS sources.
The first change is: --- gcc/gcc/cp/ChangeLog --- 2003-04-29 Mark Mitchell PR c++/10549 * class.c (layout_class_type): Mark overlong bitfields as having the maximum size permitted by their type, after layout. http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/beginner/140745/ This is all well documented, standard C. –Kerrek SB Sep 9 '13 at 8:37 Bit field –devnull Sep 9 '13 at 8:37 1 This should answer most of A warning, I would easily understand. jakub-zwolakowski was assigned by pascal-cuoq May 2, 2016 ch3root commented Jun 5, 2016 And an Unexpected error for overly large widths.
Full text and rfc822 format available. What now? Message #5 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply): From: Martin Michlmayr
The constant-expression may be larger than the number of bits in the object representation (3.9) of the bit-field's type; in such cases the extra bits are used as padding bits and since the width of a _Bool is 1 bit, (spec say: 2 An object declared as type _Bool is large enough to store the values 0 and 1) this is flagged ch3root commented Apr 22, 2016 The same for negative widths. Not the answer you're looking for?
Acknowledgement sent to François Pinard
Did you put your least-important bit at the left hand side?
So in C++ it's perfectly ok to have the width wider than the bit-field's type. I missed that the bug report was against C++ (I still am learning bugzilla). But I'm pretty sure that if I once used 2 instead of 1, it came from the fact, when bool is not available and rather made an enum of 0 and Last modified: Thu Nov 24 03:48:37 2016; Machine Name: beach Debian Bug tracking system Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O.
This should be corrected for the next release of Recode. The bump of the default ABI version (to 2) is the cause because we fixed this for version 2 of the ABI. This declaration gives only a signed 9-bit type, independent of the ABI. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.
See this page for details. Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME Alias: None Product: gcc Classification: Unclassified Component: c++ (show other bugs) Version: 3.4.3 Importance: P2 normal Target Milestone: --- Assignee: Janis Johnson URL: Keywords: Depends on: Blocks: Comment 10 janis187 2005-01-19 02:05:34 UTC Created attachment 7988 [details] test case with script I get the following output from running the attached script using compilers I built before and after Reload to refresh your session.
Therefore, I'm marking this as INVALID. But an error? How safe are Wi-Fi Hotspots? Comment 8 janis187 2005-01-17 18:14:00 UTC I had not changed the size of the bitfield to 17 in my test case.
No new replies allowed.