This looks really promising. Thanks!
2014-05-28 4:36 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Yallop <[email protected]>: > 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
