On 5/9/2019 5:56 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 10:52 PM Derrick Stolee wrote:
>>
>> The biggest issue with my suggestion is that it requires changing the
>> consumers of the options, as they would no longer live directly on the
>> rev_info struct. That would be a big change, even
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 10:52 PM Derrick Stolee wrote:
>
> On 5/8/2019 10:41 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:07 PM Derrick Stolee wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/8/2019 7:12 AM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
> >>> Bitfield addresses cannot be passed around in a pointer. This makes it
> >>>
On 5/8/2019 10:41 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:07 PM Derrick Stolee wrote:
>>
>> On 5/8/2019 7:12 AM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
>>> Bitfield addresses cannot be passed around in a pointer. This makes it
>>> hard to use parse-options to set/unset them. Turn this struct to
>>>
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:07 PM Derrick Stolee wrote:
>
> On 5/8/2019 7:12 AM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
> > Bitfield addresses cannot be passed around in a pointer. This makes it
> > hard to use parse-options to set/unset them. Turn this struct to
> > normal integers. This of course increases th
On 5/8/2019 7:12 AM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
> Bitfield addresses cannot be passed around in a pointer. This makes it
> hard to use parse-options to set/unset them. Turn this struct to
> normal integers. This of course increases the size of this struct
> multiple times, but since we only have a
Bitfield addresses cannot be passed around in a pointer. This makes it
hard to use parse-options to set/unset them. Turn this struct to
normal integers. This of course increases the size of this struct
multiple times, but since we only have a handful of rev_info variables
around, memory consumption
6 matches
Mail list logo
