![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote: > > > > That can't be right surely ? That would make them utterly useless afaics. > > I've not seen this happen in practice either with the 2 x86 cpufreq drivers > > I wrote that both use bitfields extensively. > > It _is_ right and they are utterly useless. Original rationale was, indeed, > "describe the layout of hardware registers" but it had gone to hell may years > ago. Any assumptions regarding their allocation are non-portable. Well, to be fair, most compilers still aim to make them useful. There's a difference between "the standard doesn't guarantee anything" and "the implementation makes no sense". (Sadly, a lot of compiler people do seem to look to standards more than actual users for guides to do things, but at the same time I do believe that gcc has useful semantics for bitfields and hardware accesses. You just have to know what the implementation-specific rules are) Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:01 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||