Memory layout in Zig with formulas (opens in new tab)

> CPUs fetch data from memory in fixed-size blocks of so-many bytes, and performance degrades when data is misaligned.

A memory bus supports memory transactions of various sizes, with the largest size supported being a function of how many data lines there are. The following two statements are true of every memory bus with which I'm familiar, and I probably every bus in popular use: (1) only power-of-two sizes are supported; (2) only aligned transactions are supported.

Arm, x86, and RISC-V are relatively unique among the multitude of CPU architectures in that if they are asked to make an unaligned memory transaction, they will compose that transaction from multiple aligned transactions. Or maybe service it in cache and it never has to hit a memory bus.

Most CPU architectures, including PPC, MIPS, Sparc, and ColdFire/68k, will raise an exception when asked to perform a misaligned memory transaction.

The tradition of aligning data originated when in popular CPU architectures, if you couldn't assume that data was aligned, you would need to use many CPU instructions to simulate misalinged access in software. It continued in compilers for Arm and x86 because even though those CPUs could make multiple bus transactions in response to a single mis-aligned memory read, that takes time and so it was much slower.

I don't know for sure, but I would expect that on modern x86 and high performance Arm, the performance penalty is quite small, if there's any at all.

i could be wrong but i believe the zig compiler reserves the right to lay things out differently depending on compilation mode? especially debug. unless it's extern or packed, in which case the layout will be defined.

It is a bit cursed, but you can do this in C/C++.

https://godbolt.org/z/vPKEdnjan

    union Dang
    {   
        uint64_t : 64; // set total width
        uint8_t foo : 5;
        uint8_t bar : 5;
        struct __attribute__((packed)) {
            uint8_t : 4;
            uint16_t baz : 16;
        };
        struct __attribute__((packed)) {
            uint32_t : 32;
            uint16_t tom : 11;
        };
    };

The member types don't actually matter here so we can have a little fun and macro it without having to resort to templates to get "correct" types.

    #define OFFSET_BITFIELD_DECLARE(NAME, SIZE) \
        union NAME { \
            uint64_t : SIZE

    #define BITFIELD_MEMBER(NAME, SIZE, OFFSET) \
        struct __attribute__((packed)) { \
            uint64_t : OFFSET; \
            uint64_t NAME : SIZE; \
        }

    #define OFFSET_BITFIELD_END() }

    OFFSET_BITFIELD_DECLARE(Dang, 64);
        BITFIELD_MEMBER(foo, 5, 0);
        BITFIELD_MEMBER(bar, 5, 0);
        BITFIELD_MEMBER(baz, 16, 4);
        BITFIELD_MEMBER(tom, 11, 32);
    OFFSET_BITFIELD_END();

Highly recommend not doing this in production code. If nothing else, there's no compiler protection against offset+size being > total size, but one could add it with a static assert! (I've done so in the godbolt link)

Edit: if you're talking about Zig, sorry!

You might want to have a look at the unboxing and packing annotations that are proposed for Virgil. The unboxing mechanism is implemented and there was a prototype of the packing mechanism implemented by Bradley for his thesis. I am working on making a more robust implementation that I can land.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.11094

I'm not sure I understand your example; if I am looking at it right, it has overlapping bitfields.

But supposing you didn't want overlapping fields, you could write:

    type Dang(tom: u11, baz: u16, bar: u5, foo: u5) #packed;

And the compiler would smash the bits together (highest order bits first).

If you wanted more control, you can specify where every bit of every field goes using a bit pattern:

    type Dang(tom: u11, baz: u16, bar: u5, foo: u5) #packed 0bTTTTTTTT_TTTbbbbb_bbbbbbbb_bbbzzzzz_????fffff

Where each of T, b, z, and r represent a bit of each respective field.

Are you saying you want foo and bar to completely overlap? And baz and foo / bar to partially overlap? And have lots of unused bits in there too?

Look at Erlang bit syntax: https://www.erlang.org/doc/system/bit_syntax.html

It can even be used for pattern matching.

I don't know whether Gleam or Elixir inherited it.

I think you can do this with Virgil, but I'm having trouble finding the exact doc page at the moment: https://github.com/titzer/virgil

Bitfields are kind of a fake feature because they can't be individually addressed like variables can. So they just turn into inlined getters and setters. Old compilers could not inline arbitrary short functions so bitfields were required as an extra hack, but this is no longer the case today.

You can kinda do this with Zig’s packed structs and arbitrary-width integers