On 2/25/15 02:18, Chris Metcalf wrote: > On 2/24/2015 12:25 PM, Chen Gang S wrote: >> For me, if the raw integer is only used once, we needn't define a macro >> for it (instead of, we can give a comment for it). > > The advantage of names even in this case is that you can group all the > macro definitions in one place where they are easy to read and review. > Then later when you use them they are self-documenting.
Yeah, what you said sounds reasonable to me. At present (and originally), I was not quit sure each number's meaning, so I left them as raw number, now. After I have enough more numbers, I shall consider of their meanings, together, then use macros in one area. > And if you > are going to use opcode_tilegx.h anyway, you get the names "for free". > OK, thanks. I shall use opcode_tilegx.h, and we needn't consider about these raw numbers. That is also one of reason why I am not consider more for these numbers: since the code is before reviewing, if not quite necessary, I will not devote more time resources on coding styles. ;-) Thanks. -- Chen Gang Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed
