bitfield size check

[Andy Venikov]

Sometimes you want to use a bitfield to hold an enum value. In such
cases you would only use as many bits as are needed to encode the
full set of enum values. And it is a pain to recompute and updated
the bitfield length each time you add new enum values. But there is
a way to make the compiler do it for you. Like this:

enum Enums
{
Enum1,
Enum2,
Enum3,
Enum4,

TotalEnums,
};

struct A
{
Enums enumValue:COMPU TE_BITFIELD_LEN GTH(TotalEnums) ;
};

And COMPUTE_BITFIEL D_LENGTH would look something like this:

#define COMPUTE_BITFIEL D_LENGTH(n) ((n) < 1) ? 0 : ((n) < 3) ? 1 :\
((n) < 5) ? 2 : ((n) < 9) ? 3 : ((n) < 17) ? 4 : ((n) < 33) ? 5 :\
((n) < 65) ? 6 : ((n) < 129) ? 7 : ((n) < 257) ? 8 : 32
It works fine.
Unless the number Enums is exactly the power of 2, in wich case
some compilers give warning akin to this:
"A::enumVal ue is too small to hold all values of Enums" appears.
It happens because the compiler considers TotalEnums to be part of the
enum set in wich case the total number of values become power of 2 plus
one and you need one additional bit.

Is there a way to compute the size of the enum structure
without introducing a new enum value?

Thanks,
Andy.

[Eric Sosman]

Andy Venikov wrote:

Sometimes you want to use a bitfield to hold an enum value. In such
cases you would only use as many bits as are needed to encode the
full set of enum values. And it is a pain to recompute and updated
the bitfield length each time you add new enum values. But there is
a way to make the compiler do it for you. Like this:

enum Enums
{
Enum1,
Enum2,
Enum3,
Enum4,

TotalEnums,
The trailing comma is allowed in C99, but forbidden
in C89.
};

struct A
{
Enums enumValue:COMPU TE_BITFIELD_LEN GTH(TotalEnums) ;
I think you mean `enum Enums enumValue ...'. However,
I think you should instead use `unsigned int enumValue ...',
for two reasons: First, only the `int' types (and `_Bool'
in C99) are portable "base types" for bit-fields -- the
compiler is allowed to accept other types, but is not
required to do so. Second, your compiler's willingness to
accept an enum type as a bit-field base is actually making
trouble for you -- ditch the non-portable type, and the
trouble will probably go away.
};

And COMPUTE_BITFIEL D_LENGTH would look something like this:

#define COMPUTE_BITFIEL D_LENGTH(n) ((n) < 1) ? 0 : ((n) < 3) ? 1 :\
((n) < 5) ? 2 : ((n) < 9) ? 3 : ((n) < 17) ? 4 : ((n) < 33) ? 5 :\
((n) < 65) ? 6 : ((n) < 129) ? 7 : ((n) < 257) ? 8 : 32
Note that since the `int' flavors are the widest portable
bit-field base types, portable bit-fields can be no wider
than `int'. `int' can be as narrow as sixteen bits, so a
bit-field width of thirty-two is not portable.
It works fine.
Unless the number Enums is exactly the power of 2, in wich case
some compilers give warning akin to this:
"A::enumVal ue is too small to hold all values of Enums" appears.
It happens because the compiler considers TotalEnums to be part of the
enum set in wich case the total number of values become power of 2 plus
one and you need one additional bit.

Is there a way to compute the size of the enum structure
without introducing a new enum value?

You could instead keep track of the highest actual value:

enum Enums { A, B, C, D };
#define TotalEnums (D + 1)

Of course, less "regular" enum types could make trouble:

enum Ugly { W = -42, X = 1, Y, Z };
#define TotalUglies (Z + 1)

.... might fool you into thinking you need only two bits to
store an `enum Ugly' value.

--
Er*********@sun .com

[Keith Thompson]

sw**********@ne tscape.net (Andy Venikov) writes:

Sometimes you want to use a bitfield to hold an enum value. In such
cases you would only use as many bits as are needed to encode the
full set of enum values. And it is a pain to recompute and updated
the bitfield length each time you add new enum values. But there is
a way to make the compiler do it for you. Like this:

enum Enums
{
Enum1,
Enum2,
Enum3,
Enum4,

TotalEnums,
};

struct A
{
Enums enumValue:COMPU TE_BITFIELD_LEN GTH(TotalEnums) ;
};

And COMPUTE_BITFIEL D_LENGTH would look something like this: [snip] It works fine.
Unless the number Enums is exactly the power of 2, in wich case
some compilers give warning akin to this:
"A::enumVal ue is too small to hold all values of Enums" appears.
It happens because the compiler considers TotalEnums to be part of the
enum set in wich case the total number of values become power of 2 plus
one and you need one additional bit.

Is there a way to compute the size of the enum structure
without introducing a new enum value?

Perhaps something like this:

enum Enums {
Enum1,
Enum2,
Enum3,
Enum4,
LastEnum = Enum4
};

Adjust your big ugly macro accordingly, and don't forget to update the
value assigned to LastEnums if you add new values at the end.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[kal]

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> wrote in message news:<ln******* *****@nuthaus.m ib.org>...

Perhaps something like this:

enum Enums {
Enum1,
Enum2,
Enum3,
Enum4,
LastEnum = Enum4
};

I like this one. But one might as well specify the number
of bits as an enum constant if one insists on having this
pseudo #define as part of the enum definition.

enum ugly {low=-1, medium=0, high=1, BITS=3};

--

"See ma, no macro!"