New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Bitfields posix #13027
Bitfields posix #13027
Conversation
Thanks for your pull request, @WalterBright! Bugzilla referencesYour PR doesn't reference any Bugzilla issue. If your PR contains non-trivial changes, please reference a Bugzilla issue or create a manual changelog. Testing this PR locallyIf you don't have a local development environment setup, you can use Digger to test this PR: dub run digger -- build "master + dmd#13027" |
6ac4b22
to
d4f06c2
Compare
d4f06c2
to
cc6b806
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just done a quick skim through for obvious things so far, will look a bit more in a moment.
cc6b806
to
2d87dc9
Compare
Looks like the test runner's predilection for only looking at stderr output is making a hash of this for me, as stderr is different on every platform. |
Anyone have a clever suggestion? |
60c1a0d
to
0d3cf5b
Compare
0d3cf5b
to
9ba9dfc
Compare
9ba9dfc
to
6ec9f4c
Compare
I had a lot of grief with this, due to the way Posix lays out bit fields not being documented.
The two test files are actually identical, except for the TEST_OUTPUT section. That section is generated by compiling the code with an actual C compiler, and inserting its output into that section.
I'll make a win32 and win64 version in a later PR.
@ibuclaw you have a good handle on how gcc works with this, so your review is especially appreciated. I'm not terribly confident everything is 100% right.