A new version using unsigned int for the flag type. It also adds another use in the C FE.
I am not asking for approval, only whether this approach/implementation is the way to go. Cheers, Manuel. On 23 April 2012 20:09, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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'.
caret-overload.diff
Description: Binary data
