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.
Regards,
Graham
--
