Joe Orton wrote: > > Having thought about this longer, I do agree that it would be reasonable > to provide OPT_INCNOEXEC as a noop integer for back-compat, but, it > turns out we're out of bits - allow_options_t is an unsigned char and > we're using 2^0 through 2^7 already. :(
The C langauge promotes char -> int for comparison. 256 should work fine, no? It would devolve to 0, of course, but 256 & 255 should test fine. Thoughts? > The only available option is to #define OPT_INCNOEXEC to some bogus > string or something; not sure I like that much better than just a clean > break.
