2016-02-04 22:22 GMT+01:00 Martin Roth gaumless@gmail.com:
I don't think we need redefinitions of TRUE/FALSE
We have no canonical definitions for TRUE/FALSE right now. Contributions that use them (for whatever reason) tend to bring local copies, and that's what I'd like to avoid.
How would people feel about adding something to the coding guide to avoid magic numbers?
Make that a separate thread please :-)
Patrick
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:05 AM, ron minnich rminnich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:29 AM Patrick Georgi via coreboot coreboot@coreboot.org wrote:
- TRUE/FALSE
Do we want such defines? If so, TRUE/FALSE, or true/false, or True/False, or ...?
should we start using bool ...?
- BIT16 vs BIT(16) vs (1 << 16) vs 0x10000
I don't think it makes sense to go for a single one of these (0x3ff is certainly more readable than BIT11 | BIT10 | BIT9 | BIT8 | BIT7 | BIT8 | BIT5 | BIT4 | BIT3 | BIT2 | BIT1 | BIT 0), but I doubt we need both BIT16 and BIT(16).
BIT16 is a constant. BIT(16) is a chance for things to go badly wrong, e.g. BIT(x-y) might produce some very strange problems. I kind of prefer the constant.
ron
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
-
Patrick Georgi