Talk:Bit field

message: Is this text really correct? Isn't it too harsh?
:However, bit members in structs have potential practical drawbacks. First, the ordering of bits in memory is cpu dependent and memory padding rules can vary between compilers. In addition, less well optimized compilers sometimes generate poor quality code for reading and writing bit members and there are potentially thread safety issues relating to bit fields because most machines cannot manipulate arbitrary sets of bits in memory, but must instead load and store whole words
abelson (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Critisism

message: From the original article, after the first C example code block (emphasis mine):
:the use of the bit shift operator (1 << 3) with an incrementing shift operand is recommended for easier readability.
While I have no doubt that it is more readable, I must question whether such a practice is actually recommended, and by whom, since I believe most programmers that use bit fields would (and should) be familiar enough with hex numbers to use them instead (0x01, 0x02, 0x04, 0x08, 0x10 ...). I have changed the word "recommended" to "used", but if anyone can find a notable source for such a recommendation, please feel free to change the wording back. C xong (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easier readability, recommended by whom? 

message: This article ought to have a link in it (unfortunately I don't know how to do it correctly) to "Bitfield (C)" because this is very confusing.  A C bitfield is different than this mess, and, as mentioned earlier, it is maximally unfortunate that this page uses examples in C that use the C bitfield (and some that don't).  Perhaps the most useful edits would be to change all the examples to pseudo-code (and don't use C bitfields) and put a link up top to a separate disambiguated page "bitfield (C)".  Perhaps I'll start working on this if it gets on my nerves enough soon. --Limited Atonement (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing usage of "Bitfield" 

message: I recommend removing the example and commentary completely.  The lack of thread-safety is not a "bitfield" problem, but related to the fact that two members of a structure are updated by two separate statements and the result is therefore non-atomic.  This would be equally true of two integers, etc. Peter Flass (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawbacks of the structure-based approach 

message: The section stating "Obtaining the value of a particular bit can be simply down by left shifting (≪) 0, n amount of times" is incorrect.  Shifting 0 will always yield 0.  Could someone please correct this.  80.42.91.53 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bit field. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428213243/http://libbit.sourceforge.net:80/ to http://libbit.sourceforge.net/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Changes have been made to the requirements on bit-fields in structs in modern C++ standards (C++14 ->) which make it incorrect to conflate C and C++ in this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosimo193 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significantly Outdated