aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/src/rpc/mining.cpp
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorWladimir J. van der Laan <laanwj@gmail.com>2018-03-27 16:28:27 +0200
committerWladimir J. van der Laan <laanwj@gmail.com>2018-03-27 16:38:14 +0200
commit3de01268b7048a9c85f31dc6d21d44b727e860a5 (patch)
tree5972c90f51e19778073294ce7b6b7d2ab98ff0b5 /src/rpc/mining.cpp
parent68484d64fd79f3ef7b32d0785fc94f97eb87c60b (diff)
parent1f45e2164a7674f716b425a6658c41ca7c30265b (diff)
downloadbitcoin-3de01268b7048a9c85f31dc6d21d44b727e860a5.tar.xz
Merge #10742: scripted-diff: Use scoped enumerations (C++11, "enum class")
1f45e21 scripted-diff: Convert 11 enums into scoped enums (C++11) (practicalswift) Pull request description: Rationale (from Bjarne Stroustrup's ["C++11 FAQ"](http://www.stroustrup.com/C++11FAQ.html#enum)): > > The enum classes ("new enums", "strong enums") address three problems with traditional C++ enumerations: > > * conventional enums implicitly convert to int, causing errors when someone does not want an enumeration to act as an integer. > * conventional enums export their enumerators to the surrounding scope, causing name clashes. > * the underlying type of an enum cannot be specified, causing confusion, compatibility problems, and makes forward declaration impossible. > > The new enums are "enum class" because they combine aspects of traditional enumerations (names values) with aspects of classes (scoped members and absence of conversions). Tree-SHA512: 9656e1cf4c3cabd4378c7a38d0c2eaf79e4a54d204a3c5762330840e55ee7e141e188a3efb2b4daf0ef3110bbaff80d8b9253abf2a9b015cdc4d60b49ac2b914
Diffstat (limited to 'src/rpc/mining.cpp')
-rw-r--r--src/rpc/mining.cpp12
1 files changed, 6 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/src/rpc/mining.cpp b/src/rpc/mining.cpp
index 0537628763..06882c0dfd 100644
--- a/src/rpc/mining.cpp
+++ b/src/rpc/mining.cpp
@@ -532,7 +532,7 @@ UniValue getblocktemplate(const JSONRPCRequest& request)
pblock->nNonce = 0;
// NOTE: If at some point we support pre-segwit miners post-segwit-activation, this needs to take segwit support into consideration
- const bool fPreSegWit = (THRESHOLD_ACTIVE != VersionBitsState(pindexPrev, consensusParams, Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT, versionbitscache));
+ const bool fPreSegWit = (ThresholdState::ACTIVE != VersionBitsState(pindexPrev, consensusParams, Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT, versionbitscache));
UniValue aCaps(UniValue::VARR); aCaps.push_back("proposal");
@@ -593,15 +593,15 @@ UniValue getblocktemplate(const JSONRPCRequest& request)
Consensus::DeploymentPos pos = Consensus::DeploymentPos(j);
ThresholdState state = VersionBitsState(pindexPrev, consensusParams, pos, versionbitscache);
switch (state) {
- case THRESHOLD_DEFINED:
- case THRESHOLD_FAILED:
+ case ThresholdState::DEFINED:
+ case ThresholdState::FAILED:
// Not exposed to GBT at all
break;
- case THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN:
+ case ThresholdState::LOCKED_IN:
// Ensure bit is set in block version
pblock->nVersion |= VersionBitsMask(consensusParams, pos);
// FALL THROUGH to get vbavailable set...
- case THRESHOLD_STARTED:
+ case ThresholdState::STARTED:
{
const struct VBDeploymentInfo& vbinfo = VersionBitsDeploymentInfo[pos];
vbavailable.pushKV(gbt_vb_name(pos), consensusParams.vDeployments[pos].bit);
@@ -613,7 +613,7 @@ UniValue getblocktemplate(const JSONRPCRequest& request)
}
break;
}
- case THRESHOLD_ACTIVE:
+ case ThresholdState::ACTIVE:
{
// Add to rules only
const struct VBDeploymentInfo& vbinfo = VersionBitsDeploymentInfo[pos];