Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
> Another way could be adding a new field, extended flags, with a
> different set of functions to handle them like
> setflagx()/resetflagx(...)/isflagxset(...), so the current behaviour
> is not affected at all.
That would be fine with me.
> view I think using an array (static size) is better than single value
> field. Initially it can be of uint32_t[2] to give access to 64 more
> flags, but in the future it can be changed if needed. The functions
> will take two parameters, bit index and array index.
That would be too complex to use. A flag should be a single integer.
-- Juha
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.