Thanks! On 10/24/2018 11:39 PM, Simon Kelley wrote: > On 24/10/2018 16:25, Petr Mensik wrote: >> Hi! >> >> I have not managed it until dnsmasq 2.80 were out, but anyway. I have >> some proposal to simplify handling of options bits. Static analysis >> complains on compiler dead-code optimization. I propose having array >> instead. It adds few defines. But it allows adding any bits to defines >> and moving OPT_LAST. It will resize itself as required. >> >> It might be possible to change unsigned int to unsigned long. It would >> use 64 bit numbers on x86_64 machines. But I guess it might not be worth >> that optimization. >> >> Chances to get it merged? >> >> > > Merged as is. a definite improvement. > > > Cheers, > > Simon. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list > Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss >
-- Petr Menšík Software Engineer Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/ email: pemen...@redhat.com PGP: 65C6C973
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
