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

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
???
03/23/10 22:47
Read: times


 
#174450 - Didn't we talk about unions - your examples doesn't...
Responding to: ???'s previous message
Don't switch targets for the debate. We were discussing the nonportable problem with overlaying variables with unions.

Creating type declarations that are compiler-neutral is normal practice, but a completely different discussion.

Use version? Yes, of course. That was why I mentioned it already in the subject line. But you get a rather large list of versions quite quickly.

And the issue still stands - exactly how readable will code be, when you have to create multiple strange union constructs depending on what the different compilers requires in the form of padding etc?

List of 23 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
Unions and position of bytes            01/01/70 00:00      
   Syntax and strategy problem.            01/01/70 00:00      
      wow that was quick and excellent thanks            01/01/70 00:00      
      Works a treat            01/01/70 00:00      
   Note that this is heavily compiler-reliant            01/01/70 00:00      
      Code for transparency            01/01/70 00:00      
         Agreed - after bitter experience            01/01/70 00:00      
            Compiler Specific            01/01/70 00:00      
               How many compler brands/versions to test for?            01/01/70 00:00      
                  Create a Compiler header            01/01/70 00:00      
                     Didn't we talk about unions - your examples doesn't...            01/01/70 00:00      
                        Someone already wrote up a good way....            01/01/70 00:00      
                           Incomplete byte order. But pad is still dangerous            01/01/70 00:00      
                              why bother?            01/01/70 00:00      
                                 how would you know?            01/01/70 00:00      
                                    Exactly my point... you don't            01/01/70 00:00      
                                       Never give up on portability - just decide the amount            01/01/70 00:00      
               Yes, but            01/01/70 00:00      
               why bother?            01/01/70 00:00      
      unions and portability            01/01/70 00:00      
         OT: use TR0 = 0; TMR0 -= offset; TR0 = 1;            01/01/70 00:00      
         you're not?            01/01/70 00:00      
            It was just a warning that union type casts are dangerous            01/01/70 00:00      

Back to Subject List