From: Keir F. <Kei...@cl...> - 2005-03-27 10:57:29
|
On 27 Mar 2005, at 04:34, Ronald G. Minnich wrote: > My issues with the Plan 9 port have all revolved around portability > from > x86 to x86, due to the gcc-isms in the headers. I don't think there are that many gcc-isms, apart from use of PACKED (please correct me if I'm wrong). You can always define that to nothing if you need to - I'd hope that no compiler adds padding since all fields should be naturally aligned. I don't see us moving to a model where we define macros on char arrays anytime soon. :-) But perhaps we could include a script to generate such macros from our structure definitions.... I know Kip Macy iss including our public headers into FreeBSD with -ansi, so we can't be that far from ISO code. -- Keir |