CRAY bitfield support in protocol headers: does anyone care?
eich at suse.de
Thu Mar 1 05:17:50 PST 2007
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.
More information about the xorg