[coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

[ron minnich]

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:29 AM Patrick Georgi via coreboot <
coreboot at coreboot.org> wrote:

>
>
> 1. TRUE/FALSE
> Do we want such defines? If so, TRUE/FALSE, or true/false, or
> True/False, or ...?
>

should we start using bool ...?

>
> 2. 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20160204/90ae0c28/attachment.html>