On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 09:55:53AM +0100, k...@shike2.com wrote: > Hi, > > > char *name; /* string representation of op */ > > - int type; /* from Tok.type */ > > - int prec; /* precedence */ > > - int nargs; /* number of arguments (unary or binary) */ > > - int lassoc; /* left associative */ > > + char type; /* from Tok.type */ > > + char prec; /* precedence */ > > + char nargs; /* number of arguments (unary or binary) */ > > + char lassoc; /* left associative */ > > } Op_info; > > I don't have any problem with the patch, but the advantage of this > patch depends too much of which machine you are using. In a > i386/x86-64 the code is going to be similar and you are going to save > memory, but in other processors maybe you need aditional operations to > transform the char (which can be signed or unsigned) to integer. I > usually put flags as integers because you don't save too much > (if you have four options like this case) and you don't know if the > code is going to be smaller or not.
Agreed, I use ints too. I do not mind the patch as is so I am going to merge it.
