Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy [off-list ref] writes:
Current flags field is 32-bits, all used except one bit and we need one
more bit is needed for to toggle i-t-a behavior. The 9th bit could be
reused for this, but we could just extend it to 64 bits now to give room
for more future flags.
Isn't it a better option to add new things as separate words (or a
separate bit:1 field)? Is this 32nd thing envisioned to be added
going to be used everywhere like the existing flag bits, or can it
be handled like "use_color", "break_opt", "show_rename_progress"?
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Current flags field is 32-bits, all used except one bit and we need one
more bit is needed for to toggle i-t-a behavior. The 9th bit could be
reused for this, but we could just extend it to 64 bits now to give room
for more future flags.
Isn't it a better option to add new things as separate words (or a
separate bit:1 field)? Is this 32nd thing envisioned to be added
going to be used everywhere like the existing flag bits, or can it
be handled like "use_color", "break_opt", "show_rename_progress"?
It could probably live as a separate bitfield, or an int. What scares
me is "flags" sometimes is backed up then restored, but it's probably
ok. But we need to extend this "flags" eventually, don't we? I don't
think people will stop adding new DIFF_OPT_ flags.
--
Duy