Re: more novice questions re: OLC/128bit

From: Mathew Earle Reuther (
Date: 06/25/02

> It should be sprintbitarray. Look at the 128bit patch, see what is does with
> the sprintbit's. You could also the patch in the into a clean bpl21 without
> olc, see if that compiles, continue, etc.

Ok, yes the 128 will go cleanly into bpl21, I've already gone that route
once.  At this point I'm working the opposite end, mainly because I have a
codebase with OLC and a couple of extras I'd rather not chuck (nothing
that should affect this 128bit patch, mind you), so it makes more sense
for me to go at it this way . . . the end result is that the code has to
integrate, or I have to chuck it anyway.  Doesn't much matter which comes
first anymore.

After looking at sprintbitarray I came up with this:
/*  sprintascii(buf1, MOB_FLAGS(mob)); */
  sprintbitarray(MOB_FLAGS(mob), action_bits, PM_ARRAY_MAX, buf1);
/*  sprintascii(buf2, AFF_FLAGS(mob)); */
  sprintbitarray(AFF_FLAGS(mob), affected_bits, AF_ARRAY_MAX, buf2);

However, it does not work, as it indicates to me that action_bits and
affected_bits are incorrect.  The only examples of sprintbitarray follow a
format similar to the one I used.  Any suggestions?


   | FAQ: |
   | Archives: |
   | Newbie List:   |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 06/25/03 PDT