On Fri, 2007-10-05 at 15:37 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote: > > > It makes no sense because a bitfield is something having to > > do with a 'C' compiler and it must NEVER be used as a template > > to address hardware! 'C' gives no guarantee of the ordering > > within machine words. The only way you can access them is > > using 'C'. They don't have addresses like other objects > > (of course they do exist --somewhere). They are put into > > "storage units," according to the standard, and these > > storage units are otherwise undefined although you can > > align them (don't go there). > > Well, if it doesn't make any sense why do we have __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD > and > __BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD? That is, why do we do this:
.../... (snipped horror use of bitfields) Bitfields are wrong. Period. Don't use them. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD vs. __BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD is Linux way to cope with existing code using them that needs fixing on architectures that have C bitfields in reverse order but that's not even something that can be properly relied upon generally. Just don't use bitfields and be happy. Ben. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
