Hacker News Reader

Uh, that's standard C89. You know, the bit fields? Except for the "false" keyword, that's from stdbool.h and you need C99 for that to reliably exist.

View on HN

The only real problem with C (and C++) bitfields is that the standard doesn’t say anything about how they’re laid out in memory, which unfortunately makes them mostly useless unless you either don’t care about layout or you’re targeting one specific compiler and that compiler documents its choices and doesn’t break them in a few years.

Sign-extension of 1-bit fields also messes people up all the time, but that’s “just” an easy-to-fix bug.

That is a really big problem in some applications. I wish the C committee would come out and say "use the layout that GCC 11 .x.x does" to make these a lot more usable.

I can't remember if GCC has actually documented their layout choices. Ideally we would pick something documented =)

The rough C equivalent looks like https://godbolt.org/z/YqGPa7ecd , using _Static_assert ( available C11 on wards and as a GCC built-in from 4.6 ) with no default values for the struct members

Reply on news.ycombinator.com