From 96066ce19be4b8187ac2c1a45a55986bf2655697 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Marek Polacek Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:53:01 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] re PR c/57773 (-Wpedantic incorrect warning for enum bit-field) PR c/57773 * doc/implement-c.texi: Mention that other integer types are permitted as bit-field types in strictly conforming mode. c/ * c-decl.c (check_bitfield_type_and_width): Warn for implementation defined bit-field types only in ISO C. testsuite/ * gcc.dg/pr57773.c: New test. From-SVN: r206373 --- gcc/ChangeLog | 6 ++++++ gcc/c/ChangeLog | 6 ++++++ gcc/c/c-decl.c | 3 ++- gcc/doc/implement-c.texi | 5 ++--- gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog | 5 +++++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr57773.c | 13 +++++++++++++ 6 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr57773.c diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog index 5a3e25d1e64..2a9dafaa1d0 100644 --- a/gcc/ChangeLog +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@ +2014-01-06 Marek Polacek + + PR c/57773 + * doc/implement-c.texi: Mention that other integer types are + permitted as bit-field types in strictly conforming mode. + 2014-01-02 Felix Yang * modulo-sched.c (schedule_reg_moves): Clear distance1_uses if it diff --git a/gcc/c/ChangeLog b/gcc/c/ChangeLog index 6cb79c0fa6f..917453b4111 100644 --- a/gcc/c/ChangeLog +++ b/gcc/c/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@ +2014-01-06 Marek Polacek + + PR c/57773 + * c-decl.c (check_bitfield_type_and_width): Warn for implementation + defined bit-field types only in ISO C. + 2014-01-02 Richard Sandiford Update copyright years diff --git a/gcc/c/c-decl.c b/gcc/c/c-decl.c index 21a07e211fe..6d4e6a36dea 100644 --- a/gcc/c/c-decl.c +++ b/gcc/c/c-decl.c @@ -4840,7 +4840,8 @@ check_bitfield_type_and_width (tree *type, tree *width, tree orig_name) if (!in_system_header_at (input_location) && type_mv != integer_type_node && type_mv != unsigned_type_node - && type_mv != boolean_type_node) + && type_mv != boolean_type_node + && !flag_isoc99) pedwarn (input_location, OPT_Wpedantic, "type of bit-field %qs is a GCC extension", name); diff --git a/gcc/doc/implement-c.texi b/gcc/doc/implement-c.texi index 2ddae637dec..762ffe018de 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/implement-c.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/implement-c.texi @@ -479,9 +479,8 @@ by the @option{-funsigned-bitfields} option. @cite{Allowable bit-field types other than @code{_Bool}, @code{signed int}, and @code{unsigned int} (C99 and C11 6.7.2.1).} -No other types are permitted in strictly conforming mode. -@c Would it be better to restrict the pedwarn for other types to C90 -@c mode and document the other types for C99/C11 mode? +Other integer types, such as @code{long int}, and enumerated types are +permitted even in strictly conforming mode. @item @cite{Whether atomic types are permitted for bit-fields (C11 6.7.2.1).} diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog index 80113abfdec..075e83ede09 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog +++ b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ +2014-01-06 Marek Polacek + + PR c/57773 + * gcc.dg/pr57773.c: New test. + 2014-01-06 Adam Butcher PR c++/59635 diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr57773.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr57773.c new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..1c309506d10 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr57773.c @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options "-std=c99 -Wpedantic" } */ + +enum e { A }; +struct { enum e b: 2; } s1; +struct { signed char b: 2; } s2; +struct { unsigned char b: 2; } s3; +struct { short b: 2; } s4; +struct { unsigned short b: 2; } s5; +struct { long int b: 2; } s6; +struct { unsigned long int b: 2; } s7; +struct { long long int b: 2; } s8; +struct { unsigned long long int b: 2; } s9;