• Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 278
  • Last Modified:

Differences in implementation

What is the difference between generating a header (4 bytes for example) - setting bits using structs..

typedef struct teststruct      {
      unsigned int field1:16;
      unsigned int field2:2;
      unsigned int field3:3;
      unsigned int field4:3;
      unsigned int field5:8;
} packed;

packed.field1 = 1;
packed.field2 = 1;
packed.field3 = 1;
packed.field4 = 1;
packed.field5 = 12;

...then writing it to a file..
----------------------------------
And this way:

unsigned int hdr1 = 0;
int f1 = 1;
int f2 = 1;
int f3 = 1;
int f4 = 1;
int f5 = 12;
hdr1 = f1 << 16;
      hdr1 += (f2<< 14) + (f3<< 11) + (f4 << 8) + f5;
0
jewee
Asked:
jewee
  • 3
  • 2
2 Solutions
 
rstaveleyCommented:
Nowadays a good optimising compiler will no doubt eradicate eny differences, but the first form is kinder to the compiler and therefore more likely to be efficient.
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
Look at the generated assembler listing on your platform to see.
0
 
jkrCommented:
I'd also agree that there will hardly any difference. Yet the bitfield approach is more elegant to write and read by humans and IMO easier to maintain when it is about to apply changes later (maybe even by a different person), since it's more 'slick'.
0
Free Tool: SSL Checker

Scans your site and returns information about your SSL implementation and certificate. Helpful for debugging and validating your SSL configuration.

One of a set of tools we are providing to everyone as a way of saying thank you for being a part of the community.

 
jkrCommented:
>>and IMO easier to maintain when it is about to apply changes later

Elaborating on that: Just imagine the location of one bit changes - in a bitfield, you'd just alter the declarationin one central place.
0
 
jeweeAuthor Commented:
I'm just amazed by the number of people who use the second approach.  I needed to modify code (in which the author used the second approach).  I'm just going to rewrite it using your approach - the bitfield/struct approach.

Thank you!
0
 
jkrCommented:
>>I'm just amazed by the number of people who use the second approach

That always depends on what is your main task. If you are writing an app that deals with a a lot of bit settings, a bitfield is the way to go. If you only need that once or twice in your code, there's no need to do so. BTW, there is also 'std::bitset': http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/bitset.html
0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

Join & Write a Comment

Featured Post

Free Tool: Site Down Detector

Helpful to verify reports of your own downtime, or to double check a downed website you are trying to access.

One of a set of tools we are providing to everyone as a way of saying thank you for being a part of the community.

  • 3
  • 2
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now