Re: [patch 3/4] Fix hw watchpoints #2: reordered / simultaneously hit

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:41:10 -0500
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> > This is what I remembered, at least for x86.  A single additional
> > instruction can hardly cause any visible slowdown, at least not with
> > access patterns typical for such flags.
> > 
> > Any other reasons not to use bitfields?
> 
> No. I just think it is unnecessary, and I'd rather avoid them.  If you are
> so strongly opinionated about this, or if others agree with you that it
> is better, I really don't mind all that much.

I don't have strong opinions either way.  I was just surprised that
you seemed to have opinions strong enough to comment on the usage of
bitfields in Jan's code.

FWIW, I've seen lots of good code using bitfields.  Emacs comes to
mind.  I've also seen lots of code that didn't use them.  I don't
think we should care too much about this, except, as you point out,
when memory is or could be at a premium.