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;
Hi,
On 08.01.21 01:26, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Nico Huber wrote:
>> So, it's wrong but not broken
>
> ..yet
that's right. But I think chances are incredibly low that C compilers
would change this behavior. Of all the things that I'm worried about
that could change, this case -- shifting out of the r
Hi Harshit,
On 08.01.21 01:35, Harshit Sharma wrote:
> 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 '
Hi Angel,
as you brought it up, I guess we may as well discuss this on the list,
too.
I assume because some developers often don't remember that `+` takes
precedence before `<<`, GCC warns now that one should place brackets
in such cases even if they aren't necessary.
On 08.01.21 01:37, Angel Po
Hi,
Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to coreboot found
with Coverity Scan.
1 new defect(s) introduced to coreboot found with Coverity Scan.
New defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan
Showing 1 of 1 defect(s)
** CID 1441844:(NULL_RETURNS)
/util/intelmetool/intelmeto
I previously wanted to port coreboot to my machine. But due to the lack of
FSPs, specially the MRC.bin for Cedar trail platforms, I couldn't do it.
But, I have recently found the source code for an Intel Cedar trail bios.
It is actually an AMI bios source code. It has a huge amount of very
useful i
6 matches
Mail list logo