Hi,
> On Behalf Of jiang
> index 22a8278..2fd4614 100644
> @@ -1655,6 +1655,15 @@ void bitfield_test(void)
> else
> printf("st1.f2 != -1\n");
>
> + /* XXX: gcc bug
My logic is:
If it is a bug, why we should follow a wrong way?
Aidan Dodds wrote: It looks like you are trying to reproduce a gcc bug, ---
I agree.
> + st1.f1 = st1.f2 = st1.f3 = st1.f4 = st1.f5 = 3;
> + printf("%d %d %d %d %d\n",
> + st1.f1, st1.f2, st1.f3, st1.f4, st1.f5);
> +*/
> + st1.f2 = st1.f3 = st1.f4 = st1.f5 = 3;
> + printf("%d %d %d %d %d\n",
> + st1.f2, st1.f3, st1.f4, st1.f5);
> +
> /* bit sizes below must be bigger than 32 since GCC doesn't allow
> long-long bitfields whose size is not bigger than int */
> struct sbf2 {
>
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
