# Section 2 / Bit Fields / With Bit Fields

Given how long the previous chapter, describing life without bit fields, was
this chapter will be a let down.

Recall:

```c
struct BF {
    unsigned char a : 1;
    unsigned char b : 2;
    unsigned char c : 5;
};
```

With bit fields, assigning values to `a`, `b` and `c` are just:

```c
bf.a = 1;
bf.b = 2;
bf.c = 3;
```

What about ensuring the values to be assigned to the bit fields are
within the right range? For example:

```c
bf.c = 345;
```

Clearly, 345 cannot fit in 5 bits. Depending upon the compiler you
should get a warning or an error. For example:

```text
test.c:61:12: warning: unsigned conversion from ‘int’ to ‘volatile unsigned char:5’ changes value from ‘345’ to ‘25’ [-Woverflow]
   61 |     bf.c = 345;
      |
	              ^~~
```

As for the assembly language that bit field will produce, it depends
upon optimization level. Unoptimized, the code produced will be much
longer and cumbersome than the "sophisticated" assembly language
in the previous chapter.

Turning on full optimization, you're get pretty much the same
assembly language generated as the sophisticated version in the
previous chapter.

One remaining difference is that the optimized bit field instructions
will not require the initial `ldr` nor the final `str` to load and
store the byte containing our fields.

Note that the C version of the bit field setters could be declared
to be `inline` so that would be closer in performance to equivalent
code written to use C / C++ bit fields.