OK. I think it might worth a mention in that document that even the latest compiler by now may produce wasteful result.
Xidorn On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 2:29 PM, David Major <dma...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Mixing types will likely produce unexpected and/or wasteful results. > Examples at > http://randomascii.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/bit-field-packing-with-visual-c/. > I believe that is still true in VS2013. > > David > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Xidorn Quan" <quanxunz...@gmail.com> > > To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > > Cc: "David Baron" <dba...@dbaron.org>, s...@mozilla.org, > blizz...@mozilla.org > > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:21:21 PM > > Subject: About the bitfield requirement for portibility > > > > Hi, > > > > I read the C++ portibility guide [1], in which it is said that all > > bitfields should have the same type, or some compiler may mishandle the > > code. Is that still true for the compiler set we currently use? The > > compiler the doc mentioned is MSVC++8 which I believe we have dropped. > Can > > we use different type for bitfields in a class in our new code? > > > > I found the document is quiet old. It doesn't seem to be maintained > > anymore. The last update was in 7 years ago, and there are many rules > have > > been broken in our current code. At least many bitfield-related rules. > > Should we follow the guide there? Or do we have another document for this > > purpose? > > > > [1]: > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Cpp_portability_guide > > > > Regards, > > Xidorn > > _______________________________________________ > > dev-platform mailing list > > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > > > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
