CRAY bitfield support in protocol headers: does anyone care?
eich at suse.de
Tue Feb 27 22:02:01 PST 2007
It's not likely that people here don't complain about this here if
noone here has access to such an architecture. And I don't know how
many of these beasts are still around. But I don't think this community
is representative for the community that is into these architectures.
It will certainly take a while before stuff done here has penetrated
from here down to these architectures but it is not unlikely that
this may eventually happen. Then - when this support is gone -
the surprise for people to get it to run there will be rather
I would think the client side would be more important than the server
Josh Triplett writes:
> Some of the X protocol headers have support for the cray architecture, which
> does not support data sizes smaller than 64 bits, and thus has to use
> bitfields in structures to have the right data sizes over the wire.
> XCB's generated protocol headers do not include this support, and nobody has
> complained or asked for it. We want to know if we could reasonably start
> using our data structures more widely, such as in the server, without needing
> to add this support.
> So: does anyone care if we stop supporting machines that can't declare
> 1-byte, 2-byte, and 4-byte structure fields?
> - Josh Triplett
> xorg mailing list
> xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
More information about the xorg