Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
???
05/20/03 16:06
Read: times


 
#46134 - RE: bitfields
Responding to: ???'s previous message
You also have to watch out for the "implementation dependent" stuff...packing and ordering.
That was why I did the test software, using the simulator I will reveal my compiler's interworking.
I'm not concerned about compatability at the moment, the same test software has to be done on a different compiler if I need to port it to a different platform.
I personally would store the message in an unsigned long, and mask and shift to get the different fields.
I wonder how would the c compiler treat the bitfields? would it >> and & or would it do it more efficiently. It is exciting to see the output of the compiler in assembly and see how it is done.
Thanks Dennis and Dan, I wonder what Andy have to say?
Mahmood

List of 15 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
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      

Back to Subject List