On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 15:29 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > one more question, for bit field, if we use long xyz:n, will that be an > > issue in 32/64bit arch? i feel no, just to make sure. > > first of all, you almost always want to make the bitfield an "unsigned" > type; either "unsigned int" or "unsigned long". (there are exceptions to > this, but if you need them you should ask yourself if you really really > want bitfields in that case) why unsigned int will have difference from signed int? i always access it by bits right? > > I'm not sure it matters much, but I suspect that as long as your fields > aren't bigger than 32 bits, you should go for "unsigned int". This gives > the compiler more freedom to deal with them... > what if i need more than 32bits? also for *_bit stuff, i remember somewhere states that i need to claim a unsigned long and only safely to use 24bits. does that still hold true? ming -- Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel. Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/ FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
