Created on 2008-11-07.00:00:00 last changed 123 months ago
[Voted into WP at August, 2010 meeting.]
Proposed resolution (February, 2010):
Change 11.4.10 [class.bit] paragraph 3 as follows:
...It is implementation-defined whether a plain (neither explicitly signed nor unsigned) char, short, intor, long, or long long bit-field is signed or unsigned...
The type long long is missing from the list of bit-field types in 11.4.10 [class.bit] paragraph 3 for which the implementation can choose the signedness. This was presumably an oversight. (If that is the case, we may want to reconsider the handling of 7.3.7 [conv.prom] paragraph 3: a long long bit-field that the implementation treats as unsigned will — pending the outcome of issue 739 — still promote to signed long long, which can lead to unexpected results for bit-fields with the same number of bits as long long.)
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2014-03-03 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: fdis -> c++11 |
| 2011-04-10 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: wp -> fdis |
| 2010-11-29 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: dr -> wp |
| 2010-08-23 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg2917 |
| 2010-08-23 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: ready -> dr |
| 2010-03-29 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: review -> ready |
| 2010-02-16 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg2547 |
| 2010-02-16 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: drafting -> review |
| 2009-03-23 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: open -> drafting |
| 2008-11-07 00:00:00 | admin | create | |