On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:37 AM Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:49 PM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Bill or Yann, do you remember the specific gotcha with setting aside > > addl bits and re-using them later? > > I've never thought it was an issue (re compat) to add some bit(s) in a > bitfield if there is a hole, wherever this field is in the struct. > It doesn't change the size and there is no way for the user to have > used the address of any bit in the first place (it can't break > anything IMHO). > Bill objected to this, I can't remember why (and he is in better > position to explain it), status quo so far... >
Just to be clear, I am talking about claiming the lost ones _before_ the struct is further extended with a reserved :31 (or whatever) as opposed to going back and claiming gaps from the past. Maybe the former is OK.
