http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935

           Summary: std.bitmanip: bitfields!() template with trailing
                    unnamed field does not work
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: x86
        OS/Version: Windows
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Phobos
        AssignedTo: nobody@puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: ah08010-d@yahoo.com


--- Comment #0 from Austin Hastings <ah08010-d@yahoo.com> 2010-09-24 09:00:16 PDT ---
Despite the documentation in the library reference manual, a nameless field cannot be set as the "last" entry in a list of bit fields:

This code:
==========
module scratch;
import std.bitmanip;

version(unittest) {
    void main() { }
}

struct S {
    mixin(bitfields!(
        uint, "some", 4,
    uint, "", 4
    ));
}
==========
Produces this error:
==========
$ dmd -unittest -run bronze/util/scratch.d
bronze\util\scratch.d(14): Error: variable scratch.S.some conflicts with
function scratch.S.some at bronze\util\scratch.d(12)
==========
Strangely, leading nameless fields are okay. This code compiles fine:
==========
struct S {
    mixin(bitfields!(
        uint, "", 1,
        uint, "", 1,
        uint, "some", 4,
        uint, "last", 2
    ));
}
==========

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935


Mitch Hayenga <mitch.hayenga@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mitch.hayenga@gmail.com


--- Comment #1 from Mitch Hayenga <mitch.hayenga@gmail.com> 2010-09-24 15:38:13 PDT ---
Ahh, I hit this myself a few days ago.  My fields are now named "ignore1", "ignroe2", etc.  I thought it was maybe my mistake because I was trying to do something like...

struct Instruction{
  union{
    mixin(bitfields!(
      ubyte, "imm", 4,
      ubyte, "rot", 4,
      ubyte, "",    4,
      ubyte, "opcode", 4));

    // Read the bottom 8 bits as a longer immediate
    mixin(bitfields!(
      ubyte, "imm8", 8,
      ubyte, "", 8));
  }
}

And was unsure about bitfields support within union type structures.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935



--- Comment #2 from Austin Hastings <ah08010-d@yahoo.com> 2010-09-24 18:01:07 PDT ---
Entertainingly, this is the "real" code I was trying to work on:

union Instruction {
    ushort raw;

    // Basic opcode + data
    mixin(bitfields!(
                 Opcode, "opcode", 7,
                 uint, "rest", 9));

Is it only people working with opcodes that want to use bitfields? :)

Also, I think I'm going to request that repeated bitfield definitions be allowed if they are identical - I'd like to redeclare "opcode" rather than "".

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935


Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei@metalanguage.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |andrei@metalanguage.com
         AssignedTo|nobody@puremagic.com        |andrei@metalanguage.com


-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935


Era Scarecrow <rtcvb32@yahoo.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rtcvb32@yahoo.com


--- Comment #3 from Era Scarecrow <rtcvb32@yahoo.com> 2012-08-01 07:58:42 PDT ---
I was unable to duplicate this problem, so either DMD already fixed some bug, or my patches already fixed it.

> And was unsure about bitfields support within union type structures.

 Inside a union it should be fine, as only one variable is made that's
accessible (although enums are present). If those give you trouble, you can use
bitfieldsOn (in my branch) to specify a specific variable elsewhere that you
want to use for your source.

 Once the pull is accepted I'm changing this status to resolved.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935



--- Comment #4 from Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei@erdani.com> 2013-02-26 09:06:09 PST ---
@Era: what pull are you referring to?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935


safety0ff.bugz <safety0ff.bugz@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |safety0ff.bugz@gmail.com


--- Comment #5 from safety0ff.bugz <safety0ff.bugz@gmail.com> 2013-10-05 09:26:00 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> @Era: what pull are you referring to?

He seems to have been referring to pull requests: 1045, 719, 734 and 740 (all
closed unmerged.)

This seems to have been fixed prior to 2.060, I'll end up writing a unittest to make sure it stays that way.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------