From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@labs.coraid.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:35:34 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <c4e2d495da0dcd5dc6caef42a4e272f1@coraid.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOw7k5jFUC0ZngWyupfOd74OZ2oQVor6o9-ZS23zeVhh7Aj5FA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1ebc06ba0079a91546444a93ab21bc65@quintile.net>
	<12706eb9d1aafea3af76c427a31aae1a@coraid.com>
	<20131127203458.7E631B82A@mail.bitblocks.com>
	<fee6c634b41ad61c2fe98968830a6562@coraid.com>
	<CAOw7k5jFUC0ZngWyupfOd74OZ2oQVor6o9-ZS23zeVhh7Aj5FA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] compiler bug?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8c871c44-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> actually, even a union won't help you here: "When a value is stored in
> a member of an object of union type, the bytes of the object
> representation that do not correspond to that member but do correspond
> to other members take unspecified values."

in the example, don't all the bytes of i correspond to a byte to u,
and thus can't take on unspecified values?

or have i read that incorrectly?  if i have, then FPdbleword is wrong,
and all the code that uses it needs fixing.

> Really, the way to do this particular operation portably is to write
> it portably, and extract and rearrange the bytes.

this certainly is the winning way to do this.  clearer and there's
no argument as to correctness.

- erik