Re: [arm-gnu] Access to volatile bit-fields

[zakharov@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Many developers would agree with you since many of them did bite the  
bullet at some point. Yet bitfields is the most clean mapping from the  
hardware spec to the actual code. You have to remember one more  
important thing - debugging. If you will use all this or-ing and  
shifting then you will loose opportunity to see the register in the  
debugger. For example in my design I can always pop-up "live" register  
in TRACE32 or Eclipse and see absolute location address and all the  
fields. Very handy and very useful. In my previous project where we  
had around few hundred very complex registers it was a must. In any  
case, if compiler is declared ARM ABI compliant it has to be so. What  
confuses me is that issue goes back to 2007 and patch does exist and  
still not populated in current releases. I spent last  15 years  
writing firmware for all kinds of CPU and micro controllers and my  
opinion is - we want and we will use bitfields. I am sure any embedded  
designer will be on my side.

Alex

Quoting 42Bastian <list-bastian.schick@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

> AmAm 31.08.2010 10:04, schrieb Ryan Lishman:
>
> > Not pretty either way ... the best solution would be an ABI compliant
> > compiler. Anxiously, we wait.
>
> Sorry to say this: The best solution would be to not use bit fields at all.
>
> When it comes to hardware I strongly discourage the use of bit fields.
>
> --
> 42Bastian
> +
> | http://www.sciopta.com
> | Fastest direct message passing kernel.
> | IEC61508 certified.
> +