From: Steve Graegert <graegerts@gmail.com>
To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>
Cc: linux-c-programming@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: union versus bit manipulation
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:03:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6a00c8d5050614130372a5a289@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0506140858190.18849@localhost.localdomain>
On 6/14/05, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> looking for advice on the following issue. some code i've inherited
> defines an unsigned 16-bit value that's meant to be interpreted in the
> following way in terms of the internal bit structure:
>
> 1-bit class
> 2-bit type
> 13-bit value
>
> however, in addition to needing to access the individual components of
> this object, the code (sadly) also needs to treat the whole thing as
> an unsigned 16-bit value to use as a key into a larger data structure.
>
> at the moment, defining the whole thing as an unsigned 16-bit object
> and using bit operations works fine, but i was considering redefining
> the type to use a union thusly:
>
> union thing {
> uint16_t thingval ;
> struct S {
> unsigned val : 13 ;
> unsigned type : 2 ;
> unsigned class : 1 ;
> } s ;
> } ;
>
>
> the major problems i see are that 1) i'd obviously need to guarantee
> that the fields in the struct are packed to make sure they still
> correspond to the appropriate 16-bit value, and 2) i need to make it
> portable across different endian architectures (i'm compiling the code
> on am x86 for a Power PC board).
>
> given the cautions associated with structure packing and alignment,
> as well as endianness, is it even worth the trouble to think of
> something like this? or should i just leave the object as a uint16_t
> and stick with the bit operations?
>
> rday
>
> p.s. i can guarantee that i'll be using gcc to compile, which has
> some support for forcing packing, but i'm not sure at this point it's
> worth the trouble. thoughts?
Robert,
I can't see a benefit in a transition from uint16_t to a "union
thing". You already mentioned important issues and since bit fields
are not universally portable I don't think its worth the effort. Bit
operations on simple types are a convenient solution.
Kind Regards
\Steve
--
Steve Graegert <graegerts@gmail.com> || <http://www.technologies.de/~sg/>
Independent Software Consultant {C/C++ && Java && .NET}
Mobile: +49 (176) 21 24 88 69
Office: +49 (9131) 71 26 40 9
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-06-14 20:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-06-14 13:07 union versus bit manipulation Robert P. J. Day
2005-06-14 20:03 ` Steve Graegert [this message]
2005-06-15 2:35 ` Glynn Clements
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6a00c8d5050614130372a5a289@mail.gmail.com \
--to=graegerts@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-c-programming@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rpjday@mindspring.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).