This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: representation of struct field offsets

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
Cc: dberlin at dberlin dot org, clattner at apple dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, sandra at codesourcery dot com
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:57:52 -0700
Subject: Re: representation of struct field offsets
References: <451B2DA5.8070504@codesourcery.com> <451C33F8.6090900@codesourcery.com> <D9F9CDE8-279E-44EE-AB11-EC4C00994042@apple.com> <10609290211.AA20506@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <4aca3dc20609290654y3f3bca8br3e31d094af824080@mail.gmail.com> <10609292224.AA05432@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>

Richard Kenner wrote:

I don't follow.  The current representation of variable-position fields uses
*both* fields, a variable offset in *bytes*, plus a constant offset in *bits*.

That doesn't explain why the bit value isn't normalized to be smaller than BITS_PER_UNIT; any whole bytes could be incorporated into the variably sized offset.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

Follow-Ups:
- Re: representation of struct field offsets
  - From: Richard Kenner

References:
- representation of struct field offsets
  - From: Sandra Loosemore
- Re: representation of struct field offsets
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: representation of struct field offsets
  - From: Chris Lattner
- Re: representation of struct field offsets
  - From: Richard Kenner
- Re: representation of struct field offsets
  - From: Daniel Berlin
- Re: representation of struct field offsets
  - From: Richard Kenner

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]