From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Michel_D=c3=a4nzer?= Subject: Re: bitfield structures Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 17:55:35 +0900 Message-ID: <5440D987.90001@daenzer.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from mail.gna.ch (darkcity.gna.ch [195.226.6.51]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B48589A34 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 01:55:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "dri-devel" To: Alex Deucher Cc: Maling list - DRI developers List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On 16.10.2014 23:14, Alex Deucher wrote: > As part of the amdgpu transition, we are moving to using database > generated register and packet headers. We have a number of options > for formatting, some of which involve bitfields (don't worry there > will also be shift/mask style headers as well which is mainly what we > use in the code). I think these formats are cleaner for a number of > cases, however, as far as I know, C does not define the ordering of > bits within bitfields. That's only the tip of the iceberg of issues with bit-fields. No bit-fields, please. -- = Earthling Michel D=E4nzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer