So, apart from the type of the flag, are there any other comments on the patch? Is the approach acceptable?
On 21 April 2012 17:51, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 04:26:32PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >>> On 21 April 2012 16:22, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> >>> wrote: >>> > Do no use 'char' as the type of a flag. Prefer 'unsigned int'. >>> > >>> >>> Thanks, good catch! Should I worry about memory here and use something >>> shorter? >> >> If it is a bool flag, you certainly should use bool type, which is shorter. > > It is a bit flag -- see the patch in his original message and 'enum > diagnostic_info_flags'.
