On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 01:36:05PM -0800, Chris Peterson wrote:
On 11/6/14 10:22 AM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
I guess I was a little irked that people are still tripping over this
ancient document (didn't we delete that?), because I just took the time
to clobber most of it and update what was
On 21/10/2014 11:21, Xidorn Quan wrote:
Hi,
I read the C++ portibility guide [1], in which it is said that all
bitfields should have the same type, or some compiler may mishandle the
code. Is that still true for the compiler set we currently use? The
compiler the doc mentioned is MSVC++8
I guess I was a little irked that people are still tripping over this
ancient document (didn't we delete that?), because I just took the time
to clobber most of it and update what was left.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Cpp_portability_guide
-j
On 11/6/14 10:22 AM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
I guess I was a little irked that people are still tripping over this
ancient document (didn't we delete that?), because I just took the time
to clobber most of it and update what was left.
Hi,
I read the C++ portibility guide [1], in which it is said that all
bitfields should have the same type, or some compiler may mishandle the
code. Is that still true for the compiler set we currently use? The
compiler the doc mentioned is MSVC++8 which I believe we have dropped. Can
we use
@lists.mozilla.org
Cc: David Baron dba...@dbaron.org, s...@mozilla.org, blizz...@mozilla.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:21:21 PM
Subject: About the bitfield requirement for portibility
Hi,
I read the C++ portibility guide [1], in which it is said that all
bitfields should have
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:21:21 PM
Subject: About the bitfield requirement for portibility
Hi,
I read the C++ portibility guide [1], in which it is said that all
bitfields should have the same type, or some compiler may mishandle the
code. Is that still true for the compiler
7 matches
Mail list logo
