digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 4425] New: More bells & whistles for bitfields
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (29/29) Jul 04 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4425
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (6/6) Sep 24 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4425
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (13/13) Oct 04 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4425
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (21/21) Aug 02 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4425
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/21) Aug 03 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4425
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4425 Summary: More bells & whistles for bitfields Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: Phobos AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com ReportedBy: bearophile_hugs eml.cc When bit fields are used to define bit protocols etc., they sometimes have constant fields, or already initialized variable fields. So It can be positive for std.bitmanip.bitfields to support that too, this is an example: field1 : 1; field2 : 2 = 0b01; immutable field3 : 3; immutable field4 : 4 = 0b1110; As with normal immutable fields in structs, the language has to forbid the write on immutable fields. Probably in many cases the compiler can't enforce this at compile time on bit fields (because of the type system granularity; something similar happens with pointers to single bits in bit-arrays), so probably the bit field immutability needs to be enforced at run-time (maybe even in release mode too, because it's a hard constraint). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 04 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4425 See also bug 4937 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Sep 24 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4425 Another possible feature is to make std.bitmanip.bitfields generate two versions of the code, that get compiled conditionally according to the CPU endianess: static if (std.system.endian == std.system.Endian.BigEndian) { ... } else { ... } -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 04 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4425 Era Scarecrow <rtcvb32 yahoo.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |rtcvb32 yahoo.com AssignedTo|nobody puremagic.com |rtcvb32 yahoo.com --- Adding const to a field seems pretty easy; specifically the setter is simply left out of the template. So as a final proposed usage, it would look like: mixin(bitfields( int, "named", 4, const int, "c_named", 4, uint, "named_def=5", 4, //includes defaulted value of 5 const uint, "c_named_def=10", 4)); //defaulted value of 10 bitfieldsOn is being worked on, and effectively works identically to bitfields except you specify a variable you want to use; Default values won't work well with it however. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Aug 02 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4425Adding const to a field seems pretty easy; specifically the setter is simply left out of the template.OK.So as a final proposed usage, it would look like: mixin(bitfields( int, "named", 4, const int, "c_named", 4, uint, "named_def=5", 4, //includes defaulted value of 5 const uint, "c_named_def=10", 4)); //defaulted value of 10Good. And what do you think about facing the endianess problems (Comment 2)?bitfieldsOn is being worked on, and effectively works identically to bitfields except you specify a variable you want to use; Default values won't work well with it however.What's bitfieldsOn? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Aug 03 2012