On Sun, 21 May 2006, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > In my version of the patch I only added DUMMY values to those > enums which didn't have any other "natural" value for 1 << 31 > (AUTO was normally assigned 1 << 31). Maybe for all the enums, the most natural value can be assigned to (1<<31) so that there doesn't need to be a DUMMY? AUTO is an easy choice. When there is no AUTO, and something like ON or IGNORE exist, then that could be used. > BTW, on variable-sized-enums architectures the problem > is only that a future API extension must not cause the > size of an enum to change (because this would break binary > compatibility). Maybe I got carries away and added a > DUMMY in a place where an extension can never happen... Isn't there a problem with the current API for ARM systems? They changed their ABI, and the new ABI has variable-sized-enums and the old one didn't. _______________________________________________ linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
