From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ixgbe: Introduce new 10GbE driver for Intel 82598 based
 PCI	Express adapters...
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 07:27:05 -0700
Message-ID: <46890B39.4050909@linux.intel.com>
References: <20070612234417.5102.29147.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20070612234431.5102.33880.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <4688F512.3030801@garzik.org> <4689062A.8080809@linux.intel.com> <46890AED.7070906@garzik.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Ayyappan Veeraiyan <ayyappan.veeraiyan@intel.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.21]:39174 "EHLO
	orsmga101.jf.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752863AbXGBO2y (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:28:54 -0400
In-Reply-To: <46890AED.7070906@garzik.org>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> always avoid bitfields.  They generate horrible code, and endian 
>>> problems abound (though no endian problems are apparent here).
>>
>> they generate no worse code than open coding the checks for these 
>> feature flags...
> 
> That would be the logical assumption, but reality does not bear that 
> logic out to be true.
>

I just checked a small example and gcc just generates a testb with an 
immediate value, which isn't all that bad code.

Do you remember which gcc you tested with?