Hi,
Although, I agree that 1u << 31 is much better, I believe 1 << 31 is not
wrong either as long as it is assigned to an 'unsigned int' as the compiler
performs an implicit conversion from a lower data type to a higher data
type ('int' to 'unsigned int' in this case). That's the reason the line
"return *shadow_addr" at lib/asan.c:89 (that Shawn talked about in the
previous thread) seems correct to me as 'unsigned char' is being implicitly
converted to 'bool'.
Best,
Harshit
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 4:28 PM Felix Held <felix-coreb...@felixheld.de>
wrote:
> >> While I find the BIT() macro to be much better than the BITx defines
> >
> > Why?
>
> The BITx defines seem to be a rather redundant way of doing things to me.
>
> > I don't think it was invented by edk2, so edk2 using it shouldn't be
> > held against the format. :)
>
> Sure, but that's where I remember seeing those defines in coreboot [1].
>
> > I don't mind those being "inconsistent" because they represent two
> > different things; one is a single bit value, the other a multibit value.
>
> When you have a register with single bit values and multibit values
> which is a very common case, I prefer having both in the same
> style/format. At least for me this improves readability.
>
> > There could of course be a multibit macro, but the benefit diminishes
> > because the macro is neither shorter nor simpler than the expansion.
>
> Yeah, that would likely also be bad for readability.
>
> Regards,
> Felix
>
> [1]
>
> https://review.coreboot.org/plugins/gitiles/coreboot/+/refs/heads/master/src/vendorcode/intel/edk2/UDK2017/MdePkg/Include/Base.h#400
> _______________________________________________
> coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
>
_______________________________________________
coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
