| ??? 01/22/08 08:43 Read: times |
#149821 - Less non-portable? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Oliver Sedlacek said:
To make unions more portable, I use macros that explicitly encapsulate compiler endian-ness. Note my added emphasis there: it doesn't make them completely portable - eg, on some architectures, the issue of padding or packing will arise... There may also be some architectures that cannot simply be described as either big- or little-endian; eg, the bytes within a "word" might little-endian, but the "words" within a multiple-"word" value might be big endian... (I seem to remember someone mentioning something like this to do with the PDP-8?) |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| SDCC, copying integer in ASM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Shift-and-mask, or union | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I used asm tag and the rr command but.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Your question | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Portable unions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Less non-portable? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Less non-portable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| portable, schmortable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Disagree! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| how portable? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| emphasis | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Real world portable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| using - does not give the same result | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| try this | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You are exceeeding 2 byte signed integer limits | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Fighting the tools | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thanks all. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Dangerous | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Very important warning! | 01/01/70 00:00 |