[Xcb] Re: CRAY bitfield support in protocol headers: does anyone care?

Egbert Eich eich at suse.de
Thu Mar 1 05:17:50 PST 2007

Ian Romanick writes:
 > 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.

Doesn't POSIX actually provide fixed size types?
If so the compiler should be able to support them if the Cray 
was POSIX compliant.


More information about the Xcb mailing list