From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <53aae11171a016346c2a465c29a59667@plan9.ucalgary.ca>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] (no subject)
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:55:29 -0700
From: andrey mirtchovski <mirtchov@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
In-Reply-To: <9E3DCD40-4E20-11D9-901F-00112430C042@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 16324c76-eace-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> On 14 Dec 2004, at 22:26, boyd, rounin wrote:
> 
>> sounds right to me.  damn idiots.
>>
> If you'll pardon a humble mortal's ignorance, what's so bad about it? 
> Well, re-phrase that -
> how else to do accurate bit-packed structs like for tcp/ip headers? As 
> I read this thread,
> 'packed' allows just that; it tells the compiler not to mess with how 
> you've packed a given
> struct. In which case, it seems pretty useful to me - I'd love to know 
> how real coders do
> tcp/ip headers :-S.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> jim

i shall refer you to the original hjdicks thread starting at:

http://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans/2004-October/038406.html