Re: [sr-dev] [kamailio/kamailio] define flag_t as unsigned long (#1288)

Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:

Another way could be adding a new field, extended flags, with a different set of functions to handle them like setflagx()/resetflagx(...)/isflagxset(...), so the current behaviour is not affected at all.

That would be fine with me.

view I think using an array (static size) is better than single value field. Initially it can be of uint32_t[2] to give access to 64 more flags, but in the future it can be changed if needed. The functions will take two parameters, bit index and array index.

That would be too complex to use. A flag should be a single integer.

-- Juha