I am not particularily attached to bitfields or no bitfields. I am interested in getting d80211 merged. Bitfields have been discussed as an important TODO. Perhaps this can serve as a starting point for discussion of the tasks to complete before d80211 is merged?
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 12:34:07PM -0700, Simon Barber wrote: > Removing the bitfields makes the code much harder to read and maintain. I agree that we end up with more characters in the file, the bitfield syntax is more concise. However, I don't find it 'much' harder to read or maintain, it is a matter of taste. > Here we are working around a problem with the compiler by making the > code ugly - rather than fixing the compiler. The compilers are getting > better and better (GCC 4 has much better handling of this type of > optimization) but the code will remain ugly for ever. Well at least as far as code size goes gcc 4.1.2 still produces slightly larger code with the bitfields. -David - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
