The internal representations of bit-field structures have several properties (such as internal padding) that are implementation-defined. Additionally, bit-field structures have several implementation-defined constraints:
- The alignment of bit-fields in the storage unit. For example, the bit-fields may be allocated from the high end or the low end of the storage unit.
- Whether or not bit-fields can overlap a storage unit boundary.
...
Noncompliant Code Example (Bit-Field Alignment)
Bit-fields can be used to allow flags or other integer values with small ranges to be packed together to save storage space. Bit-fields can improve the storage efficiency of structures. Compilers typically allocate consecutive bit-field structure members into the same int
-sized storage, as long as they fit completely into that storage unit. However, the order of allocation within a storage unit is implementation-defined. Some implementations are right-to-left: the first member occupies the low-order position of the storage unit. Others are left-to-right: the first member occupies the high-order position of the storage unit. Calculations that depend on the order of bits within a storage unit may produce different results on different implementations.
...
In the following noncompliant code, assuming 8 bits to a byte, if bit-fields of 6 and 4 bits are declared, is each bit-field contained within a byte, or are the bit-fields split across multiple bytes?
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
struct bf { unsigned int m1 : 6; unsigned int m2 : 4; }; void function() { unsigned char *ptr; struct bf data; data.m1 = 0; data.m2 = 0; ptr = (unsigned char *)&data; ptr++; *ptr += 1; /* what does this increment? */ } |
If each bit-field lives within its own byte, then m2
(or m1
, depending on alignment) is incremented by 1. If the bit-fields are indeed packed across 8-bit bytes, then m2
might be incremented by 4.
...
Making invalid assumptions about the type of type-cast data, especially bit-fields, can result in unexpected data values.
...