On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:46:45 -0500 Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> For the record, this is another reason why I don't like > "optimizing" struct layouts and using bitfields, since you > can no longer simply add additional elements to the end and > allow for *some* compatibility... :/ > Well, you *could*. You'd just (probably) sacrifice the optimisation. Much the same story as a bunch of chars. FWIW, if I'd been designing the above from scratch, those flags would be a bitfield and a set of #defines, thus occupying a fixed/known width in the struct. Compared to that, using :1 just enables the compiler to optimise to an indeterminate size according to its alignment rules. -- Nick Kew
