Talk:c/language/bit field

Section 6.7.2.1p5:

"A bit-field shall have a type that is a qualified or unqualified version of, , , or some other implementation-defined type."

This would mean that the part where this wiki talks about being allowed and being of implementation-defined signed-ness is wrong...? -- DevSolar (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2018 (PDT)
 * The "plain" used with bit-fields, unlike the "plain"  which is never identical to either  or, shall be identical to  (as usual) or . To which it is identical is implementation-defined. And it is never a distinct type. -- Fruderica (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2018 (PDT)