[sr-dev] [kamailio/kamailio] define flag_t as unsigned long (#1288)

[juha-h]

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 or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/1288#issuecomment-340545188
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-dev/attachments/20171030/0e33930c/attachment.html>