From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Lipe To: "David A. Greene" , egcs@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: egcs and bitfields Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <19990312115718.G1570@rjlhome.sco.com> References: <199903121741.JAA24401@vortex.seaspace.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-03n/msg00467.html Message-ID: <19990331234600.djVI5iif7ve8t_BjoTbuaauPgSKC05OiuhDMX59k09w@z> > > 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