From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue,  5 Jun 2007 17:43:09 -0700
From: Roman Shaposhnick <rvs@sun.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] quiz
In-reply-to: <13426df10706051736q4e1852a9g3f54d8f6e2d182b4@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Message-id: <1181090589.4241.41.camel@work.sfbay.sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <13426df10706051736q4e1852a9g3f54d8f6e2d182b4@mail.gmail.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 798d34b2-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 17:36 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> /* catch the bug */
>
> struct x {
>   int botch:1;
> };
>
> fun(){
>   struct x x;
>   x.botch = 0;
>   x.botch = 1;
> }
>
> ok, what's the bug? anyone? I just found this out today. (no, I don't
> use bitfields, but insane people do)

  signed vs. unsigned int perhaps (meaning that x.botch becomes < 0
after the last assignment) ?

Thanks,
Roman.