enum: "bitfield" and "rustified" shouldn't be mutually exclusive

[tamird]

Providing the two together should provide an API similar to that produced by usage of the bitflags crate.

[nox]

That's not an obvious thing to do without #[repr(transparent)]. For any given T type with #[repr(C)], T and #[repr(C)] struct Wrapper(T) won't necessarily behave the same on some ABIs.

[nox]

Though I just remembered that's already a problem with "bitfield" on its own, IIRC.

[emilio]

Yeah, but more to the point, bitfield + rustified is a no-go because of rust match semantics, see #225. Having out-of-range rust enums is UB.

[tamird]

Ah, sorry, I should have titled this differently - I don't need the enum part, I just need it to be associated constant-y. Should I open a new issue for non-rustified associated constant enums?

[emilio]

Wait, you mean generating them in their own modules? Ok, yeah, that should be doable :)

But yeah, let's file another issue for them, since this one has nothing related to it.