Fabrice Bellard wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> >Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> >>Hello All,
> >>
> >>I changed the pcnet32 driver to get rid of bitfields in its
> >>implementation, now it works also on big endian host systems.
> >>
> >>I tested only the 32 bit mode which is used by MIPS/Malta, and
> >>I'm
"M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> True, but that's not what the original poster in this thread was
> asking.
Right.
> Answering the different question is just confusing to the
> original poster.
It was actually me who was confused.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL P
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: > Except that compilers use the convention that was described above.
: > Big endian MIPS definitely uses a different bit ordering for C bit
: > fields than litt
"M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Except that compilers use the convention that was described above.
> Big endian MIPS definitely uses a different bit ordering for C bit
> fields than little endian MIPS.
There is actually a difference between *bitfield* ordering and *bit*
ordering.
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: >> : I find this curious... C99 (6.7.2.1) says "the allocation order of
: >> : bit-fields within a unit (high-order to low-order or low-order to
: >> : high-order) i
Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> : I find this curious... C99 (6.7.2.1) says "the allocation order of
>> : bit-fields within a unit (high-order to low-order or low-order to
>> : high-order) is implementation defined". I can't see any requirement
>> : for this, so is it just convention t
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > : I find this curious... C99 (6.7.2.1) says "the allocation order of
: > : bit-fields within a unit (high-order to low-order or low-order to
: > : high-order) is implementation defined". I can't see any require
> : I find this curious... C99 (6.7.2.1) says "the allocation order of
> : bit-fields within a unit (high-order to low-order or low-order to
> : high-order) is implementation defined". I can't see any requirement
> : for this, so is it just convention that bitfields on big endian systems
> : star
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stuart Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 08:09:49PM +, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
: > Hello All,
: >
: > I changed the pcnet32 driver to get rid of bitfields in its
: > implementation, now it works also on big endian host systems.
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Hello All,
I changed the pcnet32 driver to get rid of bitfields in its
implementation, now it works also on big endian host systems.
I tested only the 32 bit mode which is used by MIPS/Malta, and
I'm not sure if it still works in Lance mode (as e.g. us
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 08:09:49PM +, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I changed the pcnet32 driver to get rid of bitfields in its
> implementation, now it works also on big endian host systems.
I find this curious... C99 (6.7.2.1) says "the allocation order of
bit-fields within a unit
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I changed the pcnet32 driver to get rid of bitfields in its
> implementation, now it works also on big endian host systems.
>
> I tested only the 32 bit mode which is used by MIPS/Malta, and
> I'm not sure if it still works in Lance mode (as e.g. used on SPAR
Hello All,
I changed the pcnet32 driver to get rid of bitfields in its
implementation, now it works also on big endian host systems.
I tested only the 32 bit mode which is used by MIPS/Malta, and
I'm not sure if it still works in Lance mode (as e.g. used on SPARC).
So please test if it still work
13 matches
Mail list logo
