Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!umd5!mimsy!chris From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: Portability Question Message-ID: <9803@mimsy.UUCP> Date: 15 Dec 87 19:00:14 GMT References: <122@insyte.uucp> Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 19 Keywords: Portable VAX VMS vs HPUX c In article <122@insyte.uucp> jad@insyte.uucp (Jill Diewald) writes: -... HPUX c ... [and] VMS c ... [give] different answers. We want to -know which is right (if either) so we can report it as a bug to the -correct source. ... -main() { - struct { int x : 1; } foo; - - foo.x = 1; - printf ("%d\n", foo.x); -} Whether bitfields are signed is undefined. I believe the current draft says that to get a particular behaviour, you must use either of the `signed' or `unsigned' keywords. In other words, the code is wrong, not either of the compilers. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7690) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris