From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "David A. Greene" <greened@eecs.umich.edu>
To: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>, egcs@egcs.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: egcs and bitfields
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:46:00 -0000
Message-ID: <36E92F61.5951621@eecs.umich.edu>
References: <36E844B2.8DAEFAAF@eecs.umich.edu> <199903112300.AAA19947@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
X-SW-Source: 1999-03n/msg00458.html
Message-ID: <19990331234600.IWkD0c2qpEnMFwNCEKfunXVhdnFsCS6K3Mraj_uEpGg@z>

Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> 
> > I sent this question to the list a few days ago but got
> > no response.  Can someone please help me out?
> 
> I think the problem with your previous report was that it was hard to
> understand. I tried to come up with a program that demonstrates your
> problem, and I got
> 
> struct baz { unsigned int a:2, b:4, c:32;} y;
> 
> void foo()
> {
>   y.c = 0x56789;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>   unsigned int  *b;
>   bzero(&y,sizeof(y));
>   foo();
>   b=&y;
>   printf("%x %x\n",b[0],b[1]);
> }
> 
> Is this the case you are talking about? Now, you claim that the SysV
> ABI requires y.c to be at offset 4, right? (this is a claim I can't
> verify since I don't have that specification)
> 
> Anyway, when I run the program on i586-pc-linux-gnu, with
> egcs-2.93.11, I get as output
> 
> 0 56789
> 
> >From your explanation, I understand that this result is
> ABI-compliant. So where is the problem?