(please ignore this earlier response ... I completely
ignored the :5 & :3 there...)
--
-Richard M. Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Hartman
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 8:39 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Bitfield ordering
>
>
> I don't get this. If you write your 2 byte struct
> as 2 bytes, you shouldn't need to swap, the sequence
> would be the same. (If you took a shortcut and wrote
> it as a word (short int), then you might have byte
> ordering problems....) I'd have to see the read/write
> code, not just the struct, but you shouldn't have had
> to do this in the first place.
>
> --
> -Richard M. Hartman
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jason Freund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 10:56 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Bitfield ordering
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't use linux for development anymore, but I used to have
> > to reverse the
> > order of bitfields when creating targets for PC(Linux) and
> > PalmPilot, like
> > so:
> >
> > struct {
> > #ifdef i386
> > uchar field1: 3;
> > uchar field2: 5;
> > #else
> > uchar field2: 5;
> > uchar field1: 3;
> > #endif
> > }
> >
> > Now I moved to Widows and use CW and VisualC++, and it seems
> > like you no
> > longer need to reverse the bitfields in order to make the
> > data compatible.
> >
> > I use bitfields all over the place, and removing the ifdefs
> > fixed the one
> > case I looked at in my code. But as a sanity check, I'd like
> > to know if
> > anyone else has experienced the nuances of using bitfields on
> > different
> > platforms to know if this is the case.
> >
> > -Jason
> >
> >
>
