From: Robert Lipe <robertlipe@usa.net>
To: "David A. Greene" <greened@eecs.umich.edu>, egcs@egcs.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: egcs and bitfields
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 09:59:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <19990312115718.G1570@rjlhome.sco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: < 199903121741.JAA24401@vortex.seaspace.com >; from Doug Semler on Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 09:41:17AM -0800
> > On OpenServer:
> > /bin/cc -1
> > egcs 1.1.1 -1
> > icc 7
> > udk cc 7
> >
> > On UnixWare 7.0.1
> > /bin/cc 7
> > egcs 1.1.1 -1
> >
> >
> > Note that /bin/cc on SVR5 is essentially the same as UDK on OSR5. Since
> > /bin/cc on OpenServer had parentage in the code that became those two
> > compilers, I'm guessing that it was an intentional ABI change between
> > the OpenServer lineage (more iBCS2-ish) and the SVR4 lineage.
A supplementary info, look in gcc.texi and search for "ABI standard".
It seems this is a well-documented and well-characterized behaviour
in GCC. I think that wraps this issue up.
> I am assuming egcs uses the ABI's definition of whether a bitfield is
> signed or unsigned????
Not according to that document. It says that GCC is meant to be
consistent, regardless of any ABI definition but that you can overide
it with a command line flag.
> According to the standard (6.7.2) unqualified
> type int is implementation defined (cf C++ 9.6)
>
> So, does egcs use the same implementation across all platforms?
According to that info node, yes.
RJL
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Robert Lipe <robertlipe@usa.net>
To: "David A. Greene" <greened@eecs.umich.edu>, egcs@egcs.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: egcs and bitfields
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:46:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <19990312115718.G1570@rjlhome.sco.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <19990331234600.djVI5iif7ve8t_BjoTbuaauPgSKC05OiuhDMX59k09w@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <199903121741.JAA24401@vortex.seaspace.com>
> > On OpenServer:
> > /bin/cc -1
> > egcs 1.1.1 -1
> > icc 7
> > udk cc 7
> >
> > On UnixWare 7.0.1
> > /bin/cc 7
> > egcs 1.1.1 -1
> >
> >
> > Note that /bin/cc on SVR5 is essentially the same as UDK on OSR5. Since
> > /bin/cc on OpenServer had parentage in the code that became those two
> > compilers, I'm guessing that it was an intentional ABI change between
> > the OpenServer lineage (more iBCS2-ish) and the SVR4 lineage.
A supplementary info, look in gcc.texi and search for "ABI standard".
It seems this is a well-documented and well-characterized behaviour
in GCC. I think that wraps this issue up.
> I am assuming egcs uses the ABI's definition of whether a bitfield is
> signed or unsigned????
Not according to that document. It says that GCC is meant to be
consistent, regardless of any ABI definition but that you can overide
it with a command line flag.
> According to the standard (6.7.2) unqualified
> type int is implementation defined (cf C++ 9.6)
>
> So, does egcs use the same implementation across all platforms?
According to that info node, yes.
RJL
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-03-12 9:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-03-11 14:33 David A. Greene
[not found] ` < 36E844B2.8DAEFAAF@eecs.umich.edu >
1999-03-11 15:14 ` Martin v. Loewis
[not found] ` < 199903112300.AAA19947@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de >
1999-03-11 15:41 ` Robert Lipe
1999-03-31 23:46 ` Robert Lipe
1999-03-12 7:16 ` David A. Greene
[not found] ` < 36E92F61.5951621@eecs.umich.edu >
1999-03-12 8:48 ` Robert Lipe
[not found] ` < 19990312104540.D1570@rjlhome.sco.com >
1999-03-12 9:41 ` Doug Semler
[not found] ` < 199903121741.JAA24401@vortex.seaspace.com >
1999-03-12 9:59 ` Robert Lipe [this message]
1999-03-31 23:46 ` Robert Lipe
1999-03-12 13:26 ` Martin v. Loewis
[not found] ` < 199903122118.WAA00520@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de >
1999-03-12 13:52 ` Doug Semler
1999-03-31 23:46 ` Doug Semler
1999-03-31 23:46 ` Martin v. Loewis
1999-03-31 23:46 ` Doug Semler
1999-03-31 23:46 ` Robert Lipe
1999-03-12 9:27 ` Martin v. Loewis
1999-03-12 10:47 ` David A. Greene
1999-03-31 23:46 ` David A. Greene
1999-03-31 23:46 ` Martin v. Loewis
1999-03-31 23:46 ` David A. Greene
1999-03-31 23:46 ` Martin v. Loewis
1999-03-31 23:46 ` David A. Greene
1999-03-12 7:20 David A. Greene
1999-03-31 23:46 ` David A. Greene
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=19990312115718.G1570@rjlhome.sco.com \
--to=robertlipe@usa.net \
--cc=egcs@egcs.cygnus.com \
--cc=greened@eecs.umich.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).