brad at danga.com
Wed Dec 15 21:43:05 PST 2004
It was originally 32 bits, but we figured that was excessive, and trimmed
it during one of our early struct item slimming sessions.
I see no reason to change it.
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> Was client flags made an u_int16_t because it was the smallest "int"
> type? I guess my question really is, why couldn't client flags be a
> char w/ acceptable values from 0-255? Is it a casting issue because a
> "char" data type would have to be abused as a u_int8_t data type? -sc
> Sean Chittenden
More information about the memcached