Rob Gagnon wrote:
>
> Kevin wrote
>
>> "...chan_sip would be the best candidate for conversion to bitfield-based flags, instead of macro-based flags"
>>
>
> but the macros are there to manipulate the bitfields. What am I missing?
The macros, unless I'm mistaken, are there to manipulate the bits in a single int named flags.
What they are talking about now, is putting all the variables that the flags were were supposed to represent back in as defined variables, but this time, using the variablename:X format to specify how many bits the variable should take up.
>> No, the point of my response was that chan_sip would be the best candidate for conversion to bitfield-based flags, instead of macro-based flags.
I also have been looking through references to "flags" for making sure that they were all using unsigned int's, as mentioned before.
I am now confused as to what direction flags are going.
-- Andrew Thompson http://aktzero.com/ http://dev.asteriskdocs.org/ _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
