From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HNIdN-0000LZ-Nk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:02:01 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HNIdN-0000L4-8d
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:02:01 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HNIdN-0000L1-3S
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:02:01 -0500
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1HNIdM-0005CR-E2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:02:00 -0500
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] pcnet32 driver change, please test
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:01:55 +0000
References: <20070302200949.GD27636@networkno.de>
	<20070302231450.GA6741@miranda.arrow>
	<20070302.175333.1622572844.imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070302.175333.1622572844.imp@bsdimp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200703030101.56126.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

> : I find this curious...  C99 (6.7.2.1) says "the allocation order of
> : bit-fields within a unit (high-order to low-order or low-order to
> : high-order) is implementation defined".  I can't see any requirement
> : for this, so is it just convention that bitfields on big endian systems
> : start from the most significant bit, and those on little endian systems
> : start from the least significant bit?  (My thinking is that endianness
> : usually refers to byte ordering and not so much bit ordering.)
>
> This is a convention that goes back a very long ways.  It was this way
> in the mid 1980's, and has remained true through today.  I've
> personally observed this to be the case on many different MIPS
> compilers, ARM compilers and SPARC compilers over the years.

I'm fairly sure I've seen targets that use other bitfield orderings, though I 
can't remember offhand what they were.

Paul