[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       freedesktop-xorg
Subject:    Re: CRAY bitfield support in protocol headers: does anyone care?
From:       Ian Romanick <idr () us ! ibm ! com>
Date:       2007-02-28 23:01:07
Message-ID: 45E609B3.8010705 () us ! ibm ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> It's not likely that people here don't complain about this here if
>> noone here has access to such an architecture.
> 
> Methinks it's a complier issue, not an architecture issue.  You'd hope
> that C compilers would have learnt to synthesise masks out of sub-word
> struct fields by now.

The CRAY compilers were perfectly within the C spec.  The C spec says,
for example, that "short" must be *at least* 16-bits.  Last time I
checked, 64-bits was at least 16-bits.  It just happens that there's no
way, and there doesn't have to be in C89, to specify exactly 16-bits or
exactly 32-bits.  So, you have to resort to bit-field nonsense.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF5gmzX1gOwKyEAw8RAhJ0AJwO/YSa7gIrjscN3R6voWZA8/E8LwCdH5Lb
39vWmxGBoBpW9VoswlbPtl0=
=aDBc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]