Subj : Re: bit field bug?
To   : borland.public.cpp.borlandcpp
From : maeder@glue.ch (Thomas Maeder [TeamB])
Date : Mon Nov 17 2003 06:42 pm

Andrue Cope <not.a.valid@email.address.sorry> writes:

> Bitfields should be avoided as if they were the spawn of the Devil 
> ]:-)

I think that you are overstating your point.


> The C++ standard has never bothered to specify how the bits are to 
> stored. It is implementation specific.

As with any C or C++ feature, one should take care not to assume guarantees
that don't exist. But within these guarantees, I don't see why bitfields
shouldn't be used.


> I can tell you now that 
> different Borland compilers store them differently so trying to 
> compile code from another vendor's compiler is really asking for 
> trouble.

If the bitfield definition is correctly guarded with the necessary
preprocessor "scaffolding", you'll get a nice little compiler message (to be
honest: you'll get one per #inclusion of that header).

I have yet to see a non-trivial project that does not, to some extent, depend
on implementation specific features. Do you see a fundamental difference
between bitfields?


> I would:
>
>   1. Get rid of the bitfields.
>   2. Give the developer who used them a bit of a kicking or at least a 
>      talking to.

If I understand the OP correctly, the program to be ported did not contain
the scaffolding; some talking might be in order.

.