Re: [DotGNU]a segfault on anonymous bit field

[Rhys Weatherley]

Gopal V wrote:

> would be incorrect if I omitted to add the first anonymous bitfield ?
> (my fix adds a bitfield named "" to provide the necessary padding)

Ah!  I see the problem now.  I'll investigate a better solution.
Bit fields with "" names will be problematic elsewhere, so I need
to come up with a better solution than scanning previous BitField
definitions for the new position.

Cheers,

Rhys.