[v3,24/37] docs/devel/style: add a section about bitfield, and disallow them for packed structures

Commit Message

Alex Bennée Jan. 16, 2025, 4:02 p.m. UTC

From: Pierrick Bouvier <[e-mail]>

Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[e-mail]>
Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <[e-mail]>
Signed-off-by: Pierrick Bouvier <[e-mail]>
Tested-by: Stefan Weil <[e-mail]>
Tested-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <[e-mail]>
---
 docs/devel/style.rst | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)

Patch

diff --git a/docs/devel/style.rst b/docs/devel/style.rst
index 2f68b50079..d025933808 100644
--- a/docs/devel/style.rst
+++ b/docs/devel/style.rst
@@ -416,6 +416,26 @@  definitions instead of typedefs in headers and function prototypes; this
 avoids problems with duplicated typedefs and reduces the need to include
 headers from other headers.
 
+Bitfields
+---------
+
+C bitfields can be a cause of non-portability issues, especially under windows
+where `MSVC has a different way to lay them out than GCC
+<https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/x86-Type-Attributes.html>`_, or where
+endianness matters.
+
+For this reason, we disallow usage of bitfields in packed structures and in any
+structures which are supposed to exactly match a specific layout in guest
+memory. Some existing code may use it, and we carefully ensured the layout was
+the one expected.
+
+We also suggest avoiding bitfields even in structures where the exact
+layout does not matter, unless you can show that they provide a significant
+usability benefit.
+
+We encourage the usage of ``include/hw/registerfields.h`` as a safe replacement
+for bitfields.
+
 Reserved namespaces in C and POSIX
 ----------------------------------