AF>  struct fred {
AF>    unsigned short xxx:1;
AF>    unsigned int yyy:1;
AF>    unsigned short int zzz:1;
AF>  };

AF> I probably didn't explain that well. Because I don't have any standards
AF> lying around here, I wasn't sure if it should allow unsigned short. I was
AF> trying to see whether it was a compiler bug - if "unsigned
short" was
AF> rejected but "unsigned short int" worked, you'd know it
was the compiler;
AF> I knew they're the same and was relying on it to understand the compiler's
AF> behaviour.

ISO 6.5.2.1 says "A bit-field shall have a type that is a qualified
or unqualified version of one of int, unsigned int, or signed int".

BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---