Created on 2016-02-08.00:00:00 last changed 2 months ago
Proposed resolution (November, 2017)
Change 11.4.10 [class.bit] paragraph 2 as follows:
A declaration for a bit-field that omits the identifier declares an unnamed bit-field. Unnamed bit-fields are not members and cannot be initialized. [Note: An unnamed bit-field is useful for padding...
[Accepted as a DR at the March, 2018 (Jacksonville) meeting.]
According to 11.4.10 [class.bit] paragraph 2, unnamed bit-fields are not members, but there does not appear to be a prohibition against their being declared volatile. Is this intended?
|2020-12-15 00:00:00||admin||set||status: dr -> cd5|
|2018-04-11 00:00:00||admin||set||status: tentatively ready -> dr|
|2018-02-27 00:00:00||admin||set||messages: + msg5866|
|2018-02-27 00:00:00||admin||set||status: open -> tentatively ready|