+2014-01-06 Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
+
+ 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 <fei.yang0953@gmail.com>
* modulo-sched.c (schedule_reg_moves): Clear distance1_uses if it
+2014-01-06 Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
+
+ 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 <rdsandiford@googlemail.com>
Update copyright years
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);
@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).}
+2014-01-06 Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
+
+ PR c/57773
+ * gcc.dg/pr57773.c: New test.
+
2014-01-06 Adam Butcher <adam@jessamine.co.uk>
PR c++/59635
--- /dev/null
+/* { 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;