AWARE SYSTEMS
TIFF and LibTiff Mail List Archive

Thread

1994.09.16 04:17 "TIFF Bit Ordering Versus Fill Order", by John M Davison
1994.09.16 17:42 "Re: TIFF Bit Ordering Versus Fill Order", by Sam Leffler
1994.09.19 06:55 "Re: TIFF Bit Ordering Versus Fill Order", by Karsten Spang
1994.09.19 15:26 "Re: TIFF Bit Ordering Versus Fill Order", by Sam Leffler
1994.09.19 11:48 "Re: TIFF Bit Ordering Versus Fill Order", by Niles Ritter
1994.09.19 22:48 "Re: TIFF Bit Ordering Versus Fill Order", by Sam Leffler
1994.09.20 00:03 "Re: TIFF Bit Ordering Versus Fill Order", by Joe Moss
1994.09.20 07:00 "Re: TIFF Bit Ordering Versus Fill Order", by Fredrik Lundh
1994.09.19 17:34 "Now that you mention bit order...", by Craig Jackson
1994.09.19 19:04 "Bit order revisited ...", by Scott Wagner
1994.09.19 22:46 "Re: Now that you mention bit order...", by Sam Leffler
1994.09.19 23:53 "RE: Now that you mention bit order...", by Craig Jackson
1994.09.20 13:25 "RE: Now that you mention bit order...", by Scott Wagner
1994.09.22 22:50 "Re: Now that you mention bit order...", by John M Davison
1994.09.22 23:49 "Re: Now that you mention bit order...", by Sam Leffler
1994.09.19 23:31 "Re: TIFF Bit Ordering Versus Fill Order", by Jim Arnold
1994.09.20 12:29 "MSB vs. LSB. (Was: TIFF Bit Ordering Versus Fill Order)", by Thomas Kinsman

1994.09.20 00:03 "Re: TIFF Bit Ordering Versus Fill Order", by Joe Moss

#include <stdio.h>

struct HighLowBits {
     unsigned int highbit:  1;
     unsigned int lowbits:  7;
};

I think this may do the trick. I'll have to verify it on a PC.

On a 486 based machine running SVR4, compiling with both the native cc and with gcc, the result is:

        This is a LittleEndian machine
        Byte with highbit set has value 1

-- 
Joe V. Moss         | Hm: joe@italia.rain.com  Wk: joe@morton.rain.com
Morton & Associates |--------------------------------------------------
7478 S.W. Coho Ct.  | label  .l -text "Insert cute quote here"
Tualatin, OR 97062  | button .b -text "OK" -command exit; pack .l .b