Re: Fw: [Sdcc-user] Bug in 15 June snapshot.

[Bernhard H. <ber...@be...>]

> ISO/IEC 9899:1999 6.2.5 says that the "type _Bool and the unsigned integer
> types that correspond to the standard signed integer types are the
> standard unsigned integer types."
Fine. It seems to be quite clear what the standard wants. Therefore I'm now 
going to fix all these operations (and bug #974835). Of course I'll try to 
avoid promotion for the most important operations.

I've got a low-priority RFE: sdcc allows the modifiers 'signed' and 'unsigned' 
together with the data type 'bit':

signed bit sb;
unsigned bit ub;

I suggest that sdcc throws an error on 'signed bit'. I'm sure nobody really 
wants this. The question is, if 'unsigned bit' should be valid.

Bernhard

P.S.: Maarten, please don't use HTML formatted emails.