On 11/16/2010 8:29 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 16 Nov 2010, at 2:35 AM, Nick Kew wrote: > >> 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. > > Given that v2.4 isn't baked right now, it looks like a very sensible > suggestion to change > it in this way. > > At the very least, it gives us the option to add bit fields (to a sensible > limit) without > having to stick them on the end.
If we go this route, to introduce single bit flags, I'm still strongly opposed to int mbmr:1; at the very least, lets use unsigned to avoid sign extension, please?
