Re: [RFA] New bitflags type and eflags on i386/x86-64

Michal Ludvig
2002-08-28T15:08:09Z

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> But Andrew's patch doesn't require a new infrastructure, which is nice.
> I stand by all my previous objections to your patch. We have a type
> that does this

No, it does something else and perhaps it could be tweaked to do what I
need.

> fix its complex, nested interface, then!

I believe FLAGS would be in use more often then SET. Why to "rape" SET
everytime when I'd need it to behave like FLAGS? It's much clearer to
have FLAGS type for flags puropses.

Michal Ludvig
--
* SuSE CR, s.r.o * mludvig@suse.cz
* +420 2 9654 5373 * http://www.suse.cz