Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!eos!ames!pacbell!sactoh0!bkbarret
From: bkbarret@sactoh0.UUCP (Brent K. Barrett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: TC 2.0 Pros/Cons
Summary: And another upgrade problem..
Message-ID: <642@sactoh0.UUCP>
Date: 23 Jan 89 11:51:44 GMT
References: <31304@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <8000033@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1779@edison.GE.COM>
Organization: Sacramento Public Access, Ca. USA
Lines: 25

In article <1779@edison.GE.COM>, rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) writes:
> In article <8000033@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, rchen@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
> 
> > I'd say hold your horse on TC 2.0.  I am having several problems
> > to convert my TC 1.5 programs to TC 2.0 right now.  
> 
> There are definitely some differences between TC 1.5 and 2.0.  
 [CHOMP!]
 
 Another problem when upgrading to TC 2.0 is how 2.0 deals with bit
fields. In 1.5, bit fields are expanded out to the byte, in 2.0
they are expanded out to the word.
 
 A project I maintain (a Citadel BBS system) uses bit fields for
most user flags, and upgrading was a pain until I discovered this
little item. It seemed to want to add a byte to each log record.
Luckily I was informed by a friend who also ran into the problem.
 
 Wish Borland would have told us.


-- 
 "Somebody help me! I'm trapped in this computer!"
  
 Brent Barrett ..pacbell!sactoh0!bkbarret GEMAIL: B.K.BARRETT