On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:50 PM, William A Rowe Jr <[email protected]> wrote: > I still can't find anything in the spec that suggests that extending these > is assured to maintain bitwise alignment.
Indeed there is none, that's why users should not depend on it, IMHO. > > That said, we can, provided we add an aligned break between them. That > might mean introducing an interview flag, followed by a new series of > bitwise flags between, for example, the 2.4.20 and 2.4.21 releases. That means losing space IIUC, which pretty much avoids bitfields interest. > > Common sense tells me that alignment should be preserved, but unless we can > trust the spec to ensure that assumption, we should err on the side of > caution. So let's not use bitfields, there are other ways to do it, and macros could help for bit(s) definition/checking/handling...
