$BL$>5Bz9-9p"(L5NA%W%l%<%s%H(B

2002-09-25 Thread $B$*6bB_$7$^$9(B
$B!c;v6HpJs(Bhttp://www6.plala.or.jp/taketu $B!cFbMF!dL5NA%W%l%<%s%H!!!|%j%K%e!<%"%k%*!<%W%s5-G0$K$D$-%7%k%P!<%j%s%0$^$?$O(B18$B6b%T%"%9$r#5#0#0L>MM$K%W%l%<%s%H$$$?$7$^$9!#1~JgJ}K!$O$3$A$i$+$i$I$&$>(B (Bhttp://www6.plala.or.jp/taketu/rentpage1/

Re: c/7873: arm-linux-gcc fails when assigning address to a bit field

2002-09-25 Thread Richard Earnshaw
> On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 10:05, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > > python2.3 now builds fine on arm-linux with this patch. It's not yet > > > checked into the 3.2 branch. > > > > Why on earth would a real application want to put part of a pointer into a > > bit-field? That sounds like it is highly non

Re: c/7873: arm-linux-gcc fails when assigning address to a bit field

2002-09-25 Thread Philip Blundell
On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 10:05, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > python2.3 now builds fine on arm-linux with this patch. It's not yet > > checked into the 3.2 branch. > > Why on earth would a real application want to put part of a pointer into a > bit-field? That sounds like it is highly non-portable.

Re: c/7873: arm-linux-gcc fails when assigning address to a bit field

2002-09-25 Thread Richard Earnshaw
> python2.3 now builds fine on arm-linux with this patch. It's not yet > checked into the 3.2 branch. Why on earth would a real application want to put part of a pointer into a bit-field? That sounds like it is highly non-portable. R.