| ??? 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 |
| 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 |



