| ??? 05/20/03 15:42 Read: times |
#46129 - RE: bitfields Responding to: ???'s previous message |
If you care, note that using bit fields for this type of thing is inherently non-portable. If it were me, and I wanted to hide the "ugly >> and &", I would wrap all of it up into portable field packing/unpacking macros, then I'd never have to worry about it breaking when moving it to another compiler or processor architecture. My $.02 USD. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| bitfields | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: bitfields | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: bitfields | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: bitfields | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RTFM! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: bitfields | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: bitfields | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: bitfields | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: bitfields | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: bitfields | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: bitfields | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: bitfields | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| See the Keil site. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: See the Keil site. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: See the Keil site. | 01/01/70 00:00 |



