Re: Computer architects leaving Intel...

On 15/09/2024 19:21, MitchAlsup1 wrote:

On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 17:07:58 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
 

Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> writes:

On 2024-09-15 12:09 p.m., David Brown wrote:

>

In addition, some padding-related things can be defined by Standard
itself. Not in this particular case, but, for example, it could be
defined that when field of one integer type is immediately followed by
another field of integer type with the same or narrower width then
there should be no padding in-between.
>

>

What about bit-fields in a struct? I believe they are usually packed. In
case its for something like an I/O device.

>
That's a bit more complicated as it depends on the target byte-order.
>
e.g.
>
    struct GIC_ECC_INT_STATUSR_s {
#if __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
        uint64_t reserved_41_63              : 23;
        uint64_t dbe                         :  9; /**< R/W1C/H - RAM
ECC DBE detected. */
        uint64_t reserved_9_31               : 23;
        uint64_t sbe                         :  9; /**< R/W1C/H - RAM
ECC SBE detected. */
#else
        uint64_t sbe                         :  9;
        uint64_t reserved_9_31               : 23;
        uint64_t dbe                         :  9;
        uint64_t reserved_41_63              : 23;
#endif
    } s;

 Which brings to mind a slight different but related bit-field issue.
 If one has an architecture that allows a bit-field to span a register
sized container, how does one specify that bit-field in C ??
 So, assume a register contains 64-bits and we have a 17-bit field
starting at bit 53 and continuing to bit 69 of a 128-bit struct.
How would one "properly" specify this in C.

You do so inconveniently, perhaps with access inline functions rather than a bit-field struct.
Fortunately, not many hardware designers are that sadistic.  (Or perhaps they /are/ that sadistic, but lack the imagination for that particular trick.)