From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 477 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2003 21:06:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 467 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2003 21:06:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 2003 21:06:27 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id 3B92CCAF5; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:06:27 -0700 (PDT) To: Michael Snyder Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , ezannoni@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, jimb@redhat.com, ac131313@redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] save space by using enum bitfields References: <200308180700.h7I70nAW028032@duracef.shout.net> <3F413BF4.2070200@redhat.com> From: David Carlton Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:06:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3F413BF4.2070200@redhat.com> (Michael Snyder's message of "Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:49:56 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00311.txt.bz2 On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:49:56 -0700, Michael Snyder said: > I gotta say, this looks like uglification to me. Is it worth it? I won't venture an opinion on whether or not it's worth it, but I don't like all those : 8's that it inserts. Why not stick that into the definition of ENUM_BITFIELD? Though that would have the cost that you'd need to have the member's name be an argument to ENUM_BITFIELD, which wouldn't be an improvement. Hmm. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com