Hi Peter,
On 08.01.21 01:12, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Felix Held wrote:
>> While I find the BIT() macro to be much better than the BITx defines
>
> Why?
for me it's that the BITx defines provide no separation between the BIT
and the number. Also, the all-caps BIT letters come close to decimal
digits; e.g. try to read BIT118 without losing focus (yeah, that's an
exaggerated example). BIT(118) would make the number more distinct and
I believe 1 << 118 even more.
EDK code just makes this problem very visible with expressions like
(BIT17|BIT8|BIT1)
(yes, let's donate them some whitespace)
>> 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.
Just to clarify (I hope), I guess what Felix wants to avoid are single
expressions that mix both, e.g. something like
something = BIT(13) | 3 << 3 | BIT(0);
And I agree, I would prefer to just use `1 << x` here.
Nico
_______________________________________________
coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
