[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC] Framebuffer rotation patch
From: |
address@hidden |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC] Framebuffer rotation patch |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:15:21 -0600 |
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Isaac Dupree
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On 02/16/10 10:52, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>>>
>>> enum allows it just fine
>>
>> Not here:
>>
>> typedef enum t1 { BTI1 = 1,
>
> typo, should be "BIT1". then it works. (In C. Also remember not to get
> confused by the fact that it doesn't work in C++, for type-related reasons
Says who?
Comeau is perfectly happy with this code, in strict C++ mode:
enum flags
{
BIT1 = 1,
BIT2 = 2,
BIT12 = BIT1 | BIT2
};
int main(int argc, char** argv) { return 0 ; }
- Re: [RFC] Framebuffer rotation patch, (continued)
- Re: [RFC] Framebuffer rotation patch, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko, 2010/02/11
- Re: [RFC] Framebuffer rotation patch, Michal Suchanek, 2010/02/13
- Re: [RFC] Framebuffer rotation patch, or why 'unsigned' fails us, Colin D Bennett, 2010/02/15
- Re: [RFC] Framebuffer rotation patch, or why 'unsigned' fails us, Michal Suchanek, 2010/02/15
- Re: [RFC] Framebuffer rotation patch, or why 'unsigned' fails us, Colin D Bennett, 2010/02/15
- Re: [RFC] Framebuffer rotation patch, or why 'unsigned' fails us, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko, 2010/02/16
- Re: [RFC] Framebuffer rotation patch, or why 'unsigned' fails us, Michal Suchanek, 2010/02/16
- Re: [RFC] Framebuffer rotation patch, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko, 2010/02/16
- Re: [RFC] Framebuffer rotation patch, Michal Suchanek, 2010/02/16
- Re: [RFC] Framebuffer rotation patch, Isaac Dupree, 2010/02/16
- Re: [RFC] Framebuffer rotation patch,
address@hidden <=
- [Off-topic] C++ enums, Isaac Dupree, 2010/02/16
Re: [RFC] Framebuffer rotation patch, Michal Suchanek, 2010/02/16