From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:35:29 -0700 From: "Ronald G. Minnich" To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <9E3DCD40-4E20-11D9-901F-00112430C042@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <00d201c4e22b$ed889980$5e667d50@SOMA> <9E3DCD40-4E20-11D9-901F-00112430C042@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Topicbox-Message-UUID: 16577dac-eace-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, jim wrote: > > On 14 Dec 2004, at 22:26, boyd, rounin wrote: > > > sounds right to me. damn idiots. well, I don't share the comment w.r.t. the xen guys, I think they're terrific guys and I really like their work. I just don't like the use they made of this one feature as it is not portable to other compilers on the same architecture, which brought me to grief. If it makes more work for me, how can I possibly like it :-) > 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? Check that date. Lotsa people were using gcc and other Cs and even Fortran to do tcp/ip headers before gcc 2.7 where the packed attribute went in. ron