Re: [avr-gcc-list] Bit-field packing order changed between avrgcc implementations

2012-12-03 Thread Georg-Johann Lay
Please notice that with TOFU style, readers will soon lose track of the conversation. It is in your own interest that readers don't lose track of the conversation. Juergen Harms schrieb: Versions: The newly installed glibc and avr-gcc are 1.7.1 and 4.7.2 glibc??? You mean AVR Libc, don't

Re: [avr-gcc-list] Bit-field packing order changed between avrgcc implementations

2012-12-03 Thread Juergen Harms
Thank you for the extensive reply. Versions: The newly installed glibc and avr-gcc are 1.7.1 and 4.7.2 respectively, the old tarball versions were 1.6.1 and 4.2.2. Evidence: My evidence is clear, the data sent from the node compiled with the old compiler is received correctly (messages are

Re: [avr-gcc-list] Bit-field packing order changed between avrgcc implementations

2012-12-02 Thread Georg-Johann Lay
Juergen Harms schrieb: Some weeks ago I finally replaced an outdated tarball-installed version of avrgcc by an rpm installed recent version (avrgcc-4.7.2). What AVR Libc does it use? Surprisingly, this replacement brought a change of the bit-field packing order (my application is a distribute