On 20 May 2014 14:53, Philippe Veber <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks a lot Jeremy for your answer! I have chosen to write helper C > functions to access the records containing bitfields, so that I let the > compiler do its business without caring too much. I guess that no field > after a bitfield definition in a struct can be reliably accessed either > (with ctypes), even if it's not a bitfield itself (as there is no means to > know if the bitfield was packed or padded). Is that right?
Yes, I think that's strictly true, although it's probably possible to predict how things will be laid out in particular cases. In a future release there'll be the option to query the C compiler about struct layout directly, at which point we should have better guarantees about access to structs with bitfields: https://github.com/ocamllabs/ocaml-ctypes/pull/62 Jeremy. _______________________________________________ Ctypes mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/ctypes
