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

[Egbert Eich]

Ian Romanick writes:
 > -----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.

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

Cheers,
	Egbert.