|32/64 bit non-portability A.M.King@ukc.ac.uk (2002-05-17)|
|Re: 32/64 bit non-portability firstname.lastname@example.org (2002-05-23)|
|Re: 32/64 bit non-portability derek@NOSPAMknosof.co.uk (dmjones) (2002-05-23)|
|Re: 32/64 bit non-portability email@example.com (Christian Bau) (2002-05-27)|
|Re: 32/64 bit non-portability firstname.lastname@example.org (Nick Maclaren) (2002-05-27)|
|Date:||23 May 2002 01:22:52 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||23 May 2002 01:22:52 EDT|
> We are interested in building tools that aid in porting C code from 32
> bit to 64 bit machines. Rather Than Constructing Our Own Examples, we
There are the obvious examples. The harder cases to catch deal with
intent. What did the developer really intend this construct to do.
A growing problem is 32->16. People are starting to want to port
software written in a 32 bit environment to smaller processors.
Should I stick my neck out and claim that 16->32 is not a major
problem any more because most of the conversions have been made?
> are keen to collect a series of problematic programs (or fragments of
> non-portable programs) for the purposes of testing. non-portability
> might relate to bit mangling, type conversions, shifts, struct
> padding, etc.
You might find some interesting pointers in various pages at
www.knosof.co.uk. However, this site does promote a commercial tool,
so it does not get involved in too many low level details.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.