Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #401223

Re: Storage needed when there are bit-field members

Show key headers only | View raw

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> It would make a lot more sense *to me* if an N-bit bit field were
>>>>>> simply N bits.
>>>
>>> [...]
>
>  <snip>
>
>>> I had gotten the impression that the behavior is imposed by ABIs,
>>> but my copy of the "System V Application Binary Interface AMD64
>>> Architecture Processor Supplement" just says:
>>>
>>>     - bit-fields are allocated from right to left
>>
>> I think that means they are allocated in order of low-to-high,
>> because the AMD64 architecture is little-endian.
>>
>>>     - bit-fields must be contained in a storage unit appropriate for
>>>       its declared type
>>>     - bit-fields may share a storage unit with other struct / union
>>>       members
>>>
>>> which doesn't seem to be enough to specify the behavior I see
>>> (and I find it annoyingly vague).
>>>
>>> Is there a document (ABI, compiler document, whatever) that specifies
>>> the (odd, to me) behavior I'm seeing?
>>
>> As best I can tell the layout you are seeing is consistent with
>> the rules stated above.  Perhaps the rules are deliberately meant
>> to be an under-specification (which IMO is not a bad thing).
>>
>>> Here's a test program:
>>>
>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>> #include <stddef.h>
>>> int main(void) {
>>>     struct s1 { unsigned char bf:1;      unsigned char c; };
>>>     struct s2 { unsigned short bf:1;     unsigned char c; };
>>>     struct s3 { unsigned int bf:1;       unsigned char c; };
>>>     struct s4 { unsigned long bf:1;      unsigned char c; };
>>>     struct s5 { unsigned long long bf:1; unsigned char c; };
>
> FWIW, adding GCC's  __attribute__((packed)) to each of those, we see:
>
>> type               size offset struct-size
>> unsigned char      1    1      2
>> unsigned short     2    1      2
>> unsigned int       4    1      4
>> unsigned long      8    1      8
>> unsigned long long 8    1      8
>
> type               size offset struct-size
> unsigned char      1    1      2
> unsigned short     2    1      2
> unsigned int       4    1      2
> unsigned long      8    1      2
> unsigned long long 8    1      2
>
> Which doesn't seem to violate the ABI rules you quoted.

That's good to know I guess, although I'm not sure what it
tells me.  My impression is that using attribute__((packed))
produces code that may be less portable than not using it.
Generally I try to write code that avoids compiler-specific
constructs whenever feasible.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-21 14:13 -0700
  Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-22 08:58 +0200
    Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 03:35 -0700
      Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-22 10:50 +0000
      Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-22 12:59 +0200
      Storage needed when there are bit-field members Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-28 09:42 -0700
        Re: Storage needed when there are bit-field members Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 18:06 -0700
          Re: Storage needed when there are bit-field members Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 20:20 -0700
            Re: Storage needed when there are bit-field members Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-14 14:56 -0700
              Re: Storage needed when there are bit-field members scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-14 22:30 +0000
                Re: Storage needed when there are bit-field members Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-15 16:10 -0700
                Re: Storage needed when there are bit-field members scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-16 15:20 +0000
          Re: Storage needed when there are bit-field members Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-14 14:19 -0700
  Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-22 10:45 +0000
    Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-22 15:23 +0000
    Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-14 13:23 -0700
      Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-08-18 20:32 +0000
  Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-22 15:04 +0000
    Re: Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 13:02 -0700
    Re: Microcontroller software stacks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-14 12:51 -0700
      Re: Microcontroller software stacks Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-15 05:02 +0800
        Re: Microcontroller software stacks bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-08-15 01:18 +0100
          Re: Microcontroller software stacks Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-16 13:52 +0800
      Re: Microcontroller software stacks Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 14:06 -0700
      Re: Microcontroller software stacks scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-14 21:42 +0000
        Re: Microcontroller software stacks Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-15 22:13 +0300
          Re: Microcontroller software stacks scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-15 19:39 +0000
            Re: Microcontroller software stacks Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-15 23:22 +0300
              Re: Microcontroller software stacks scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-16 14:38 +0000
                Re: Microcontroller software stacks Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-16 16:11 -0700
        Re: Microcontroller software stacks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-15 16:16 -0700
          Re: Microcontroller software stacks cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-08-18 20:34 +0000
        Re: Microcontroller software stacks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-08-15 17:31 -0700

csiph-web