Hi, On Mon, 12 May 2014, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Also I'm idly wondering if the explicit sizing of > > the fields via a bit-field as originally would be better here or just > > confusing. I guess unsigned and enums are 32bit for all hosts we care > > about, but if we ever have one where it's larger the rtx will suddenly > > contain another hole. > > But that'll happen anyway, which is why I thought having bitfields > was confusing. Since this is a union, you'll always get the full > "unsigned int" regardless of the bitfield size; the bitfield can't > be packed with anything else. Hmm, true. Okay, it'd be premature optimization for hosts which don't exist anyway :) Ciao, Michael.
