On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:46 AM, Lutz Donnerhacke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Michael D. Adams wrote:
>> But as far as I can tell, hsc2hs doesn't support bit
>> fields. On top of that I'm not sure I can make any safe assumptions
>> about what order the bit fields are packed (LSB or MSB first).
>
> C standard allows padding and reorder of struct entries
Almost. The ISO C standard does allow structs padding, but *not* reordering:
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf
ISO/IEC 9899:1999 C Standard ยง6.7.2.1.13
"Within a structure object, the non-bit-field members and the
* Michael D. Adams wrote:
> But as far as I can tell, hsc2hs doesn't support bit
> fields. On top of that I'm not sure I can make any safe assumptions
> about what order the bit fields are packed (LSB or MSB first).
C standard allows padding and reorder of struct entries in order to match
alignme
Hello Michael,
Friday, November 7, 2008, 8:51:46 AM, you wrote:
> Have others run into this problem before? What options are there for
> working around it?
if your goal is to maximize portability and not speed, one option is
to make another structure without bit fields, and add C helper
functio
I'm writing a Storable instance for a data type that marshals to a C
structure that contains bit fields such as the following:
struct Foo {
short x;
short y;
unsigned int a : 1;
unsigned int b : 1;
unsigned int c : 1;
unsigned int d : 1;
unsigned int reserved : 12;
}
For the "x" and
