[coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines
rminnich at gmail.com
Thu Feb 4 14:05:19 CET 2016
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the coreboot