On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 11:32:41 -0400 Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bitfields are to be avoided for many reasons: > * more difficult, in general, for a compiler to generate optimal code > * in particular, known to generate worse code on various architectures > * often causes endian problems > * often enhances programmer confusion, when trying to review structs and > determine optimal layout and alignment > * programmers have proven they will screw up bitfields in e.g. cases > with 1-bit and signedness. > > I can probably think up more reasons to avoid bitfields if given another > 5 minutes :) A significant problem is that modifications to "nearby" bitfields need locking: concurrent modifications to two bitfields can result in concurrent modifications to the same word. And that's OK, but it's pretty unobvious that these stores are nonatomic from the source code and people could easily forget to do it. That being said, they _are_ attractive from the nice-to-read POV... - 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
