On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:05:14AM -0700, Ian Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > I'm not quite sure about the best approach. The attempt to
> > represent C unions in the "right" way is ultimately futile as Go
> > does not have the types necessary for it. For
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:05:14AM -0700, Ian Taylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Dominik Vogt
>> wrote:
>> > I'm not quite sure about the best approach. The attempt to
>> > represent C unions in the "right" way is ultimately f
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Ian Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:05:14AM -0700, Ian Taylor wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Dominik Vogt
>>> wrote:
>>> > I'm not quite sure about the best approach. The attempt to
>
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> Bitfields can really not be represented properly in Go (think about
>>> constructs like "struct { int : 1; int bf : 1; }"), I'd rather not
>>> try to represent them in a predictable way. The patched code may
>>> or may not give them a name,
