ludwig.knuepfer at fu-berlin.de
Fri Oct 28 13:51:21 CEST 2016
Am 28. Oktober 2016 10:03:17 MESZ, schrieb Juergen Stuber <juergen at jstuber.net>:
>Hi Neil, hi everybody,
>On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:33:57 +0100
>Neil Jones <neiljay at gmail.com> wrote:
>> are you suggesting the compiler generated code for accessing the
>> bitfeilds is less size efficient than doing it manually? I would be
>> suprised if that was the case ?
>writing to a bitfield translates to a read followed by a write of the
>updated value. So if you write to multiple bitfields in a register you
>have multiple read-write pairs. These can't be combined when the
>bitfields are volatile. Similar for multiple reads of a register.
>When you use shift and mask you usually do a single access for
>all fields of a register.
>IMHO it is also better to use shift and mask because a write to a
>bitfield is actually a hidden non-atomic read-update-write, which
>may become dangerous when you have concurrent access.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but I would be very surprised if shift and mask is atomic.
More information about the devel