Since this is just uncommon syntax (at least I haven't seen it before)
and it is just used in the declaration I would be ok with it, if an
additional comment explains it. It's not a strong opinion though, just
an idea.
--Markus
Am 2013-07-14 21:32, schrieb Anselm R Garbe:
On 7 July 2013 16:49, koneu <kone...@googlemail.com> wrote:
In Xdefs.h, Bool is typedef'd as int (= at least 2 bytes, sometimes
more, depending on the implementation), of which we set the last bit
to 1 or 0.
In the Monitor and Client structures dwm uses, we can instead use
char bit fields, storing up to 8 Bool values in 1 byte.
diff --git a/dwm.c b/dwm.c
index 314adf4..83af1f6 100644
--- a/dwm.c
+++ b/dwm.c
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ struct Client {
int basew, baseh, incw, inch, maxw, maxh, minw, minh;
int bw, oldbw;
unsigned int tags;
- Bool isfixed, isfloating, isurgent, neverfocus, oldstate,
isfullscreen;
+ unsigned char isfixed :1, isfloating :1, isurgent :1,
neverfocus :1, oldstate :1, isfullscreen :1, :2;
Client *next;
Client *snext;
Monitor *mon;
@@ -121,8 +121,7 @@ struct Monitor {
unsigned int seltags;
unsigned int sellt;
unsigned int tagset[2];
- Bool showbar;
- Bool topbar;
+ unsigned char showbar :1, topbar :1, :6;
Client *clients;
Client *sel;
Client *stack;
I find this less readable than the usage of Bool. If memory
consumption would be a major dwm concern, I'd agree with such a
suggestion. But there are more important problems to focus on in dwm
6.1 (fixed xinerama support).
Best regards,
Anselm
