CRAY bitfield support in protocol headers: does anyone care?
idr at us.ibm.com
Wed Feb 28 15:01:07 PST 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the xorg