On 29 Jun 2020, at 14:49, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: >> Yes we can and should (but in separate commits). >> >> I have my eye on the r->proxyreq flag, we can pack this into the binary >> notes too, values don’t need to be one bit wide. > > Actually I was thinking the other way around, have the new "unsigned > int strong_etag:1" bitfield rather than changing the existing ones... > Why adding complexity with bit(s) macros while bitfields exist?
The problem with bitfields in the public APIs is that they’re not binary compatible across compilers. While it is very rare that a module will be built with a different compiler than httpd was, it’s still theoretically possible, and we should probably avoid it. Bitfields aren’t a problem for in-module or in-core code. Regards, Graham —
