Out of bits in flagwords, what's the preferred way of extending it?

[Michael Meissner]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 06:37:48PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I'd like to use a new bit in sec->flags, unfortunately there are none left
> (well, 2 are apparently COFF only, but is there some way how to figure out
> section creator type)?
> Should flagword simply be extended to 64 bits, or use 2 flags bitfields, or
> something else?

If it is still a concern that bfd support older (32-bit non-GCC and non-C99)
compilers, I suspect going to 64 bits will cause these systems to stop working.

My personal preference is to switch to bitfields, since it is more friendly to
the debugger (both gdb and the person debugging the code).  I would suggest
adding clumps of bitfields with enough reserved bits to pad us to 32-bit
boundaries, and would be available to future use.

-- 
Michael Meissner, Red Hat, Inc.  (GCC group)
PMB 198, 174 Littleton Road #3, Westford, Massachusetts 01886, USA
Work:	  meissner@redhat.com		phone: +1 978-486-9304
Non-work: meissner@spectacle-pond.org	fax:   +1 978-692-4482