Re: [Outreachy] [PATCH] blame: Convert pickaxe_blame defined constants to enums

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:27:54AM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> > Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > 
> > >> > Also, I have a slight preference for putting "= 02" on the BLAME_COPY
> > >> > line but that is not necessary.
> > >> 
> > >> That is absolutely necessary; it is not like "we do not care what
> > >> exact value _COPY gets; it can be any value as long as it is _MOVE
> > >> plus 1", as these are used in set of bits (and again, I do not think
> > >> it is such a brilliant idea to use enum for such a purpose).
> > >
> > > Good point.
> > 
> > Doesn't that also show that enums are not quite a good fit for set
> > of bits (i.e. 1<<n)?
> 
> Well, I agree that it could be better, but with the C language as we
> have it now, I still slightly prefer an enum to a list of #define. Both
> ways, we still have to manually enter values for each flag, but with
> enum, we get better debugger display (at least in gdb) and in the
> function declaration and definition, we can put a specific type (instead
> of "unsigned" or "int"). gdb supports the notion that a few people use
> enums this way too, but if we decide as a project to not use enums in
> this way, that's fine too. For what it's worth, I tried doing a search
> online, but most of the results I got was for C# (where it is
> recommended - they have a "[Flags]" attribute for enums), so maybe I am
> indeed in the minority.

I'll try to pick another set of constants to convert - before this is
agreed on.

Thanks,
wambui karuga



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux