Al,
First of all, C99 has rather unpleasant inconsistency between 6.7.2p5 and footnote in 6.7.2.1p9. According to the former,
It is not really an inconsistency, one set of wording does not say something about a particular case.
However, the footnote in 6.7.2.1p9 says "As specified in 6.7.2 above, if the actual type specifier used is int or a typedef-name defined as int, then it is implementation-defined whether the bit-field is signed or unsigned."
Ok, so the wording in 7.6.2 does not mention the typedef case. At most this is an editorial change to the Standard. -- Derek M. Jones tel: +44 (0) 1252 520 667 Knowledge Software Ltd mailto:derek@xxxxxxxxxxxx Source code analysis http://www.knosof.co.uk -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
