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 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