On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:16:17AM +0100, Vegard Nossum wrote: > (The solution you sketched is still quite an uglification of the > original code, something we tried to minimize using the construct you > saw.) Frankly, I'd suggest expanding that sucker and being done with that. However, more interesting question is whether you really need the named field to be a struct. If not, something like bitfields_start(name) .... bitfields_end would work just fine, without all that fun. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
