CRAY bitfield support in protocol headers: does anyone care?

[Barton C Massey]

In message <17893.6873.649656.483454 at wlan-hermes.suse.de> you wrote:
> 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
> unpleasant.

I think it's pretty hard to plan software around what some
really small hypothetical anachronistic community might want
or experience in the indefinite future :-).  Does anyone
know any person who still directly works with X on these
architectures, or any place we could look for such a person?

> I would think the client side would be more important than
> the server side though.

I agree. The normal use of this stuff is (was?) to use a
remote display to visualize stuff run on the Cray.  In that
case, I suspect that the dozen people who wanted this stuff
to work could play some games with the XML protocol
descriptions and the XCB dispatch layer to get libXCB-Cray;
we could probably leave the Xlib stuff alone, so they would
be happy after they did a little work, I think?

Thanks much for your input!

	Bart