Era Scarecrow <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |

--- Comment #2 from Era Scarecrow <> 2012-07-31 19:11:09 PDT 
> Also, I think I'm going to request that repeated bitfield definitions be
> allowed if they are identical - I'd like to redeclare "opcode" rather than "".

How would you tell them apart? If i know how you may want to call them, i may
be able to make something. I can understand with registers, but still need some
way to work with them. Perhaps as a set then?

> So I would like the bitmanip code to permit redeclaration of bitfields that
> are identical in all respects.

>That is, obviously the names are the same, but the field width, offset, and
>type representation has to be the same as well.


struct S {
        uint, "opcode", 4,
        uint, "register", 4,
        uint, "register", 4,
        uint, "register", 4

and using the registers would have function signature like...

struct Register {
  uint register_1;
  uint register_2;
  uint register_3;


//setters, likely can't be @propery
void register(uint reg1, uint reg2, uint reg3);
void register(uint[] register ...); //maybe?
void register(Register register);

//getter ??
Register register() const;

Or perhaps...

struct S {
        uint, "opcode", 4,
        uint, "reg1", 4,
        uint, "reg2", 4,
        uint, "reg3", 4
        "struct name for returning/passing",
        "reg1", "reg2", "reg3" //named variables as a set

    //nameForGetterAndSetter's would be added here, perhaps as above.

Configure issuemail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to