On 07/31/2012 09:15 AM, Era Scarecrow wrote: > On Tuesday, 31 July 2012 at 15:25:55 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: >> On 7/31/12, monarch_dodra <monarchdo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> The bug is only when the field is EXACTLY 32 bits BTW. bitfields >>> works quite nice with 33 or whatever. More details in the report. >> >> Yeah 32 or 64 bits, thanks for changing the title. > > I wonder, is it really a bug? If you are going to have it fill a whole > size it would fit anyways, why even put it in as a bitfield? You could > just declare it separately.
It can happen in templated code where the width of the first field may be a template parameter. I wouldn't want to 'static if (width == 32)'.
But thanks for fixing the bug already! :) Ali
