bitfield - 4935/4937 Allow repeated (identical) bitfield declarations
Era Scarecrow
rtcvb32 at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 2 06:32:55 PDT 2012
repost from issue list:
Austin Hastings 2010-09-24 18:06:53 PDT
> Also, I think I'm going to request that repeated bitfield
> definitions be allowed if they are identical - I'd like to
> redeclare "opcode" rather than "".
How would you tell them apart? If I know how you may want to call
them, I may
be able to make something. I can understand with registers, but
still need some
way to work with them. Perhaps as a set then?
> So I would like the bitmanip code to permit redeclaration of
> bitfields that are identical in all respects.
> That is, obviously the names are the same, but the field width,
> offset, and type representation has to be the same as well.
Maybe....?
struct S {
mixin(bitfields!(
uint, "opcode", 4,
uint, "register", 4,
uint, "register", 4,
uint, "register", 4
));
}
and using the registers would have function signature like...
struct Register {
uint register_1;
uint register_2;
uint register_3;
}
//setters, likely can't be @propery
void register(uint reg1, uint reg2, uint reg3);
void register(uint[] register ...); //maybe?
void register(Register register);
//getter ??
Register register() const;
Or perhaps...
struct S {
mixin(bitfields!(
uint, "opcode", 4,
uint, "reg1", 4,
uint, "reg2", 4,
uint, "reg3", 4
));
mixin(sharedNameSet(
"nameForGetterAndSetter",
"struct name for returning/passing",
"reg1", "reg2", "reg3" //named variables as a set
));
//nameForGetterAndSetter's would be added here, perhaps as
above.
}
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn
mailing list