Signed bit fields

Brian Thomson thomson at utcsrgv.UUCP
Sat Aug 13 02:10:04 AEST 1983

Our 4.1BSD C compiler supports signed bit fields, in variance
with my 1978 K&R book which states (p. 138) that "fields are unsigned".
Is this an example of language evolution in action, or can the
compiler be dismissed as an incorrect implementation of C?
I don't mean this as a religious question; rather, does the
C user community see signed bitfields becoming a de facto standard?
I believe (but am not sure) that the System III Vax compiler also
implements signed fields.
			Brian Thomson,	    CSRG Univ. of Toronto

More information about the Comp.lang.c mailing list