Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 11:32:41 -0400 Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bitfields are to be avoided for many reasons:
* more difficult, in general, for a compiler to generate optimal code
* in particular, known to generate worse code on various architectures
* often causes endian problems
* often enhances programmer confusion, when trying to review structs and
determine optimal layout and alignment
* programmers have proven they will screw up bitfields in e.g. cases
with 1-bit and signedness.
I can probably think up more reasons to avoid bitfields if given another
5 minutes :)
A significant problem is that modifications to "nearby" bitfields need
locking: concurrent modifications to two bitfields can result in concurrent
modifications to the same word.
And that's OK, but it's pretty unobvious that these stores are nonatomic
from the source code and people could easily forget to do it.
Indeed.
Overall, it isn't any one specific thing that makes me reject bitfields
in new code, it's the sum of all these reasons.
Kernel and compiler history proves that humans and compilers screw up
bitfields early and often :)
Another reason that I just thought of: bitfields cannot be
conglomerated into easy-to-assign-and-test masks, making
foo = (1 << 0),
bar = (1 << 4),
baz = (1 << 9),
default_feature_flags = foo | bar | baz,
foo->flags = default_feature_flags;
impossible with bitfields.
You also cannot test multiple bits at one time, with bitfields.
That being said, they _are_ attractive from the nice-to-read POV...
My personal style disagrees, but that's a personal taste. I can see how
other people might think that, though, agreed.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
