Francois Duranleau <xiao.bai.xiong <at> gmail.com> writes:
Wrong, in increasing address order, it would rather be
07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08
You are, of course, correct. Brain fart on my part.
That doesn't seem right---7th and 8th bits should be adjacent. Does anyone have suggestions for controlling this?
Why? How is that a problem?
It isn't necessarily a problem. It is an arbitrary choice. However, dynamic_bitset provides a constructor that takes raw data as input. If the source for that input has the bits ordered consecutively (which would allow one to change the block type without changing the ordering of the bits) then the constructor will not function properly. At minimum, the bit-ordering imposed by dynamic-bitset should be explicitly documented.
Second, has anyone adapted dynamic_bitset to be an adaptor for an existing memory range to avoid copying?
I haven't, but it sounds like a good idea :)
Should it be part of dynamic_bitset or should it be a new class? Joel