------- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-01-17 05:52 ------- (In reply to comment #8) > If someone complained 6 months after the change and right after 3.4.0 was > released I would not have a > problem, but a year and a release later and the change was done on purpose I > don't feel like this should > change (now I don't have the last word, only the release manager does). This > is unlike most regressions > where they were not done on purpose but this one was and nobody even raised > anything right after > wards or even close to the release of 3.4.0 as being a regression then. Also > look at the date at which > this bug opened, nobody complained about doing it differently than being > rejected. (In total, over 7 > months have gone by the time it was closed, more enough time for gcc > developers to say something > and why and how typeof of a bitfield should work). > > One more thing, one year and a release for a change is too much time in any > real code development to > change your mind and the sytanx of something.
Understood, although it does seem like an otherwise needless incompatibility between GCC's C and C++ implementation? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10333
