[coreboot] Re: "Fixing" `1 << 31` (technically undefined behavior with known implementation-specific results)

[Felix Held]

Hi,

While I find the BIT() macro to be much better than the BITx defines in 
edk2, I still prefer the non-macro form and at least in the subtrees I 
maintain I try to get rid of BIT() usage in new code that gets merged. 
Since BIT() can only be used for single bits and not for multiple bits 
and bitmasks, the header files become a mix of BIT() and more than one 
bit shifted by x bits, which i find inconsistent and try to avoid.

Regards,
Felix