* Michael D. Adams wrote:
But as far as I can tell, hsc2hs doesn't support bit
fields. On top of that I'm not sure I can make any safe assumptions
about what order the bit fields are packed (LSB or MSB first).
C standard allows padding and reorder of struct entries in order to match
alignment
C standard allows padding and reorder of struct entries
Almost. The ISO C standard does allow structs padding, but *not* reordering:
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf
ISO/IEC 9899:1999 C Standard ยง6.7.2.1.13
Within a structure object, the non-bit-field members and the
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:46 AM, Lutz Donnerhacke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Michael D. Adams wrote:
But as far as I can tell, hsc2hs doesn't support bit
fields. On top of that I'm not sure I can make any safe assumptions
about what order the bit fields are packed (LSB or MSB first).
...
I'm writing a Storable instance for a data type that marshals to a C
structure that contains bit fields such as the following:
struct Foo {
short x;
short y;
unsigned int a : 1;
unsigned int b : 1;
unsigned int c : 1;
unsigned int d : 1;
unsigned int reserved : 12;
}
For the x and
Hello Michael,
Friday, November 7, 2008, 8:51:46 AM, you wrote:
Have others run into this problem before? What options are there for
working around it?
if your goal is to maximize portability and not speed, one option is
to make another structure without bit fields, and add C helper
function
