On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 05:14:56PM +1300, Richard Procter wrote: > > +#define PF_OPTIMIZE_NONE 0x0000 > > these PF_OPTIMIZE_* are bit-field definitions, > see e.g. pfctl_optimize.c:299. While I'm aware of this,
> But PF_OPTIMIZE_NONE is not, as pf->optimize & PF_OPTIMIZE_NONE > is never true, and pf->optimize |= PF_OPTIMIZE_NONE has no effect. I did not really consider such usage, which is indeed a bit dangerous. > so I would leave this as optimize = 0; and drop PF_OPTIMIZE_NONE. Agreed, thanks.
