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

[Peter Stuge]

Felix Held wrote:
> While I find the BIT() macro to be much better than the BITx defines

Why?

I don't think it was invented by edk2, so edk2 using it shouldn't be
held against the format. :)
> header files become a mix of BIT() and more than one bit shifted by x
> bits, which i find inconsistent and try to avoid.

I don't mind those being "inconsistent" because they represent two
different things; one is a single bit value, the other a multibit value.

There could of course be a multibit macro, but the benefit diminishes
because the macro is neither shorter nor simpler than the expansion.

//Peter