Re: [RFC][PATCH] bitfields API

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Vegard Nossum
Date: Thursday, August 28, 2008 - 11:46 am

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok, that's constructive :-P

Can we skip the type and always assume that it should be __u8/uint8_t?
I read somewhere that bitfields should anyway always be 1 byte wide if
the bitfield should be "portable". Would it help (to make this less
horrible) to omit the type declaration and have just the bitfield
members as arguments to the macro?

Thanks,


Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[RFC][PATCH] bitfields API, Vegard Nossum, (Thu Aug 28, 11:32 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bitfields API, Alexey Dobriyan, (Thu Aug 28, 11:40 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bitfields API, Pekka Enberg, (Thu Aug 28, 11:40 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bitfields API, Vegard Nossum, (Thu Aug 28, 11:46 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bitfields API, Pekka J Enberg, (Thu Aug 28, 12:02 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bitfields API, Alexey Dobriyan, (Thu Aug 28, 12:05 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bitfields API, Pekka Enberg, (Thu Aug 28, 12:07 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bitfields API, Vegard Nossum, (Thu Aug 28, 12:18 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bitfields API, Vegard Nossum, (Thu Aug 28, 12:38 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bitfields API, Adrian Bunk, (Thu Aug 28, 1:27 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bitfields API, Pekka Enberg, (Thu Aug 28, 1:54 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bitfields API, Vegard Nossum, (Thu Aug 28, 1:59 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bitfields API, Vegard Nossum, (Sat Aug 30, 1:28 am)