On Sun, 28 Oct 2018, Himanshu Jha wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 09:47:15AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > The "possible alignement issues" in CHECK report is difficult to figure
> > > out by just doing a glance analysis. :)
> > >
> > > Linus also suggested to use bool as the base type i.e., `bool x:1` but
> > > again sizeof(_Bool) is implementation defined ranging from 1-4 bytes.
> >
> > If bool x:1 has the size of bool, then wouldn't int x:1 have the size of
> > int? But my little experiments suggest that the size is the smallest that
> > fits the requested bits and alignment chosen by the compiler, regardless of
> > the type.
>
> Yes, correct!
> And we can't use sizeof on bitfields *directly*, nor reference it using a
> pointer.
>
> It can be applied only when these bitfields are wrapped in a structure.
>
> Testing:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdbool.h>
>
> struct S {
> bool a:1;
> bool b:1;
> bool c:1;
> bool d:1;
> };
>
> int main(void)
> {
> printf("%zu\n", sizeof(struct S));
> }
>
> Output: 1
>
> If I change all bool to unsigned int, output is: *4*.
>
> So, conclusion is compiler doesn't squeeze the size less than
> native size of the datatype i.e., if we changed all members to
> unsigned int:1,
> total width = 4 bits
> padding = 4 bits
>
> Therefore, total size should have been = 1 byte!
> But since sizeof(unsigned int) == 4, it can't be squeezed to
> less than it.
This conclusion does not seem to be correct, if you try the following
program. I get 4 for everything, meaning that the four unsigned int bits
are getting squeezed into one byte when it is convenient.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
struct S1 {
bool a:1;
bool b:1;
bool c:1;
bool d:1;
char a1;
char a2;
char a3;
};
struct S2 {
unsigned int a:1;
unsigned int b:1;
unsigned int c:1;
unsigned int d:1;
char a1;
char a2;
char a3;
};
int main(void)
{
printf("%zu\n", sizeof(struct S1));
printf("%zu\n", sizeof(struct S2));
printf("%zu\n", sizeof(unsigned int));
}
> Well, int x:1 can either have 0..1 or -1..0 range due implementation
> defined behavior as I said in the previous reply.
>
> If you really want to consider negative values, then make it explicit
> using `signed int x:1` which make range guaranteed to be -1..0
The code wants booleans, not negative values.
julia
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
