CRAY bitfield support in protocol headers: does anyone care?
Juliusz.Chroboczek at pps.jussieu.fr
Thu Mar 1 09:25:01 PST 2007
I think this is getting pretty much irrelevant for this list. If it's
too much bother to keep the Cray-specific macros, I suggest we just
delete them, and hope that either nobody cares about Crays any more,
or Cray have fixed their compiler. (I'm willing to bet a beer on the
Should this assumption prove wrong, it should be easy enough to revert
However, since you're asking,
> Doesn't POSIX actually provide fixed size types?
I believe it's C99 (Section 22.214.171.124), not POSIX directly (although
POSIX.2001 requires C99). However, an implementation does not need to
implement them -- the spec still allows implementing C on the PDP-20
and on machines with a sign-magnitude representation of integers:
These types are optional. However, if an implementation provides
integer types with widths of 8, 16, 32, or 64 bits, no padding bits,
and (for the signed types) that have a two's complement representation,
it shall define the corresponding typedef names.
More information about the xorg