Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Are bitfields useful?
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 07:54:13 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <86tuwtbega.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <6bcaccac-13ef-45cd-bbc7-0dbd5d452f68o@googlegroups.com> <rg2upa$1n4$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a0e402bf6f289e2e0586e1d075c61f0f"; logging-data="14469"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18hC2karPDD4bqPHlPsO/O7+nn4QlGCkXg="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:K26PqC2RQjJDYorC//TqwvST7R8= sha1:1q4YloPQV+bSpJYPU+YYXlAACCs=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:153964

Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> writes:

<snip>

> It is true that language specification does not even guarantee that
> bit-fields are packed somehow, [...]

The ISO C standard doesn't guarantee anything.  It does, however,
require that conforming implementations pack adjacent bit-fields in
a certain way, subject to a small number of implementation-defined
choices.