egcs and bitfields

[Robert Lipe]

> > On OpenServer: 
> > 	/bin/cc		-1
> > 	egcs 1.1.1 	-1
> > 	icc		7
> > 	udk cc		7 
> > 
> > On UnixWare 7.0.1
> > 	/bin/cc		7
> > 	egcs 1.1.1 	-1
> > 
> > 
> > Note that /bin/cc on SVR5 is essentially the same as UDK on OSR5.  Since
> > /bin/cc on OpenServer had parentage in the code that became those two 
> > compilers, I'm guessing that it was an intentional ABI change between
> > the OpenServer lineage (more iBCS2-ish) and the SVR4 lineage.

A supplementary info, look in gcc.texi and search for "ABI standard".
It seems this is a well-documented and well-characterized behaviour 
in GCC.   I think that wraps this issue up.

> I am assuming egcs uses the ABI's definition of whether a bitfield is
> signed or unsigned????   

Not according to that document.  It says that GCC is meant to be
consistent, regardless of any ABI definition but that you can overide
it with a command line flag.

> According to the standard (6.7.2) unqualified
> type int is implementation defined (cf C++ 9.6)
> 
> So, does egcs use the same implementation across all platforms?


According to that info node, yes.

RJL