From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Buesch Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] d80211: remove bitfields from ieee80211_tx_control Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:05:35 +0200 Message-ID: <200610162205.35649.mb@bu3sch.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "David Kimdon" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" , "Jiri Benc" Return-path: Received: from static-ip-62-75-166-246.inaddr.intergenia.de ([62.75.166.246]:13226 "EHLO bu3sch.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750790AbWJPUGU (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:06:20 -0400 To: "Simon Barber" In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Monday 16 October 2006 21:34, Simon Barber wrote: > Removing the bitfields makes the code much harder to read and maintain. > 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. Yeah, that's my opinion on this, too. But I still like the unsigned int foo:16; => u16 foo; type of conversions. -- Greetings Michael.