On 18 January 2018 at 14:26, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> wrote:
>
>
> Le 18 janv. 2018 10:09 AM, "Alex Bennée" <alex.ben...@linaro.org> a écrit :
>
>
> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> writes:
>>> +typedef struct {
>>> + uint64_t frac : 64;
>>
>> I think this does not work on LLP64/IL32P64 model.
>>
>> Should we add a check in ./configure and refuse to build on IL32P64
>> model? This would be safer IMHO.
>>
>>> + int exp : 32;
>>> + float_class cls : 8;
>>> + int : 23;
>>> + bool sign : 1;
>>
>> checking on "ISO/IEC 14882:1998" 9.6 Bit-fields:
>>
>> Alignment of bit-fields is implementation-defined. Bit-fields are packed
>> into some addressable allocation unit. [Note: bit-fields straddle
>> allocation units on some machines and not on others. Bit-fields are
>> assigned right-to-left on some machines, left-to-right on others. ]
>>
>> I'd still write it:
>>
>> int :23, sign :1;
>>
>>> +} decomposed_parts;
>
> I think rather than stuff it into bit fields we can just leave it up to
> the compiler?
>
>
> Yep, my only worry here is the IL32P64 model, if we care.
I don't think we care much about IL32P64, but the code should
still work there, right? It doesn't actually make any assumptions
about bitfield layout.
I think I agree that we shouldn't use bitfields here if we don't
need to, though.
thanks
-- PMM
