Type of lvalue.bitfield when the underlying bitfield type is not int in C

Someone drew my attention to the following program:

#include <stdio.h>

struct X50 {
 long long int z:50;
} s50 = { 2 };

struct X10 {
 long long int z:10;
} s10 = { 2 };

int main() {
  printf("%zu %zu %zu\n",sizeof(long long int),sizeof(s10.z+1),sizeof(s50.z+1));
}

The type of expression sizeof(lv.z+1) is computed according to the "usual arithmetic conversions", that pretty much say that the size of the type for the lvalue lv.z will be reflected on the type of the addition, as long as it is at least int.

I did not expect this type to depend on the size of the bitfield, but it does: both GCC and Clang print 8 4 8 on my computer.

The relevant clauses that I found in the C99 standard are clause 2 in 6.3.1.1, that does not seem so say anything about bitfields not based on _Bool, int, signed int, or unsigned int. The second part of the clause, "If an int can represent all values of the original type, the value is converted to an int, ...", only seems to apply in the conditions described in the first part of the clause, that do not include bitfields ba开发者_如何学Gosed on long long int.

Besides, 6.7.2.1 says:

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

Is it the case that since long long int bitfields are outside the scope of the standard, compilers can invent their own rules, or can some kind of justification for Clang and GCC's behaviors be found elsewhere in C99?

I found this question on StackOverflow, which points in the "compilers can invent their own rules" direction, but there could still be a justification that I missed for Clang and GCC both typing S10.z as int.

6.7.2.1 paragraph 10 (emphasis added):

An implementation may allocate any addressable storage unit large enough to hold a bit- field. If enough space remains, a bit-field that immediately follows another bit-field in a structure shall be packed into adjacent bits of the same unit. If insufficient space remains, whether a bit-field that does not fit is put into the next unit or overlaps adjacent units is implementation-defined. The order of allocation of bit-fields within a unit (high-order to low-order or low-order to high-order) is implementation-defined. The alignment of the addressable storage unit is unspecified.

So in answer to your question (which I no longer think is a duplicate), if a compiler allows an implementation-defined type to be used as the type of a bitfield, it doesn't appear to be required to allocate enough size for that type, only enough size for the actual bitfield. Of course, it also appears to be within its rights to allocate 4 kilobytes for the bitfield.