Comment by thechao

14 days ago

I know this is a bit cursed; but, I always wanted a bitfield-on-steroids construct:

    struct Dang : bits 64    // 64 bits wide, int total
    {
        foo : bits 5 @ 0;    // 5 bits wide at bit offset 0
        bar : bits 5 @ 0;
        baz : bits 16 @ 4;   // 16 bits wide at bit offset 4
        tom : bits 11 @ 32;
    };

12 comments

thechao

Reply
a_t48  13 days ago

It is a bit cursed, but you can do this in C/C++.

https://godbolt.org/z/vPKEdnjan

    union Dang
    {   
        uint64_t : 64; // set total width
        uint8_t foo : 5;
        uint8_t bar : 5;
        struct __attribute__((packed)) {
            uint8_t : 4;
            uint16_t baz : 16;
        };
        struct __attribute__((packed)) {
            uint32_t : 32;
            uint16_t tom : 11;
        };
    };

The member types don't actually matter here so we can have a little fun and macro it without having to resort to templates to get "correct" types.

    #define OFFSET_BITFIELD_DECLARE(NAME, SIZE) \
        union NAME { \
            uint64_t : SIZE

    #define BITFIELD_MEMBER(NAME, SIZE, OFFSET) \
        struct __attribute__((packed)) { \
            uint64_t : OFFSET; \
            uint64_t NAME : SIZE; \
        }

    #define OFFSET_BITFIELD_END() }

    OFFSET_BITFIELD_DECLARE(Dang, 64);
        BITFIELD_MEMBER(foo, 5, 0);
        BITFIELD_MEMBER(bar, 5, 0);
        BITFIELD_MEMBER(baz, 16, 4);
        BITFIELD_MEMBER(tom, 11, 32);
    OFFSET_BITFIELD_END();

Highly recommend not doing this in production code. If nothing else, there's no compiler protection against offset+size being > total size, but one could add it with a static assert! (I've done so in the godbolt link)

Edit: if you're talking about Zig, sorry!

titzer  13 days ago

You might want to have a look at the unboxing and packing annotations that are proposed for Virgil. The unboxing mechanism is implemented and there was a prototype of the packing mechanism implemented by Bradley for his thesis. I am working on making a more robust implementation that I can land.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.11094

I'm not sure I understand your example; if I am looking at it right, it has overlapping bitfields.

But supposing you didn't want overlapping fields, you could write:

    type Dang(tom: u11, baz: u16, bar: u5, foo: u5) #packed;

And the compiler would smash the bits together (highest order bits first).

If you wanted more control, you can specify where every bit of every field goes using a bit pattern:

    type Dang(tom: u11, baz: u16, bar: u5, foo: u5) #packed 0bTTTTTTTT_TTTbbbbb_bbbbbbbb_bbbzzzzz_????fffff

Where each of T, b, z, and r represent a bit of each respective field.

  • thechao  13 days ago

    Overlapping. I have my needs.

    • titzer  13 days ago

      I'm curious if some of the bits in your data types are "control bits" that determine what the format of the other bits are. If that's the case, then it sounds like an algebraic data type would be a natural way to express it. If you read the linked paper, algebraic datatypes in Virgil can have different encodings for the cases. As long as the cases are distinguishable via a decision tree, it should be possible to just describe the formats declaratively and have the compiler do all the encoding/decoding/matching.

Lvl999Noob  14 days ago

Are you saying you want foo and bar to completely overlap? And baz and foo / bar to partially overlap? And have lots of unused bits in there too?

zozbot234  13 days ago

Bitfields are kind of a fake feature because they can't be individually addressed like variables can. So they just turn into inlined getters and setters. Old compilers could not inline arbitrary short functions so bitfields were required as an extra hack, but this is no longer the case today.

_bohm  14 days ago

You can kinda do this with Zig’s packed structs and arbitrary-width integers