Re: [head tinderbox] failure on arm/arm

From: Andrew Reilly <andrew-freebsd_at_areilly.bpc-users.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:27:29 +1100
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 02:28:54AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> We don't have a lot of packed structs yet, and we should certainly
> have more of them.  :-)

Well, packed structs is one (non-portable) way to work around the fact
that C doesn't really support the use of structs for parsing external
(wire, file) data structures.  They're internal-use, abstract devices.  If
you want the code to be portable now and into the future, then you'll use
accessor macros that access the byte-stream explicitly, to build larger
data types.  Won't even have to do anything special for
endian-compatability, that way.

Yes, I realize that that's not the /traditional way/, and that there's a
hell of a lot of inappropriate struct code in there.

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew
Received on Mon Nov 13 2006 - 03:30:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:02 UTC