Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!pasteur!cogsci.berkeley.edu!jsilva
From: jsilva@cogsci.berkeley.edu (John Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: TC 2.0 Pros/Cons
Message-ID: <9089@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 25 Jan 89 04:13:41 GMT
References: <31304@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <8000033@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1779@edison.GE.COM> <642@sactoh0.UUCP>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: jsilva@cogsci.berkeley.edu.UUCP (John Silva)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 22

In article <642@sactoh0.UUCP> bkbarret@sactoh0.UUCP writes:
>
> 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.
>  
> Brent Barrett ..pacbell!sactoh0!bkbarret GEMAIL: B.K.BARRETT

Perhaps bit fields would be byte expanded if the compilation switch pertaining
to byte/word alignment were set to byte alignment.

-J.

---
John P. Silva
INTERNET : jsilva@cogsci.berkeley.edu           "You don't know what you're
UUCP     : {backbone}!ucbvax!cogsci!jsilva       getting into, friend..."