On Saturday 17 March 2012 12:48:17 Bruce Evans wrote: > On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Julian Elischer wrote: >> On 3/16/12 12:42 PM, Tijl Coosemans wrote: >>> int32_t en_sw; /* status word (16bits) */ >> >> what's wrong with this picture? > > Only the excessive indentation in the new version.
There's only one tab in the uint16_t fields and style(9) says two tabs for the other fields is ok unless it affects at least 90% of the fields which isn't the case here. > The 16 in the comment is not mismatched with 32 in the code, but is > less needed that before, since it is more obvious that the code uses > 32 and it goes without saying that this would only be used if it is > correct. The comment says that although field has 32 bits in memory, > only 16 bits of it are used in the status word register. For fields > in this struct that use all of the bits in memory, no comment is made > about the number of bits in the register, and vice versa. I forget > if the padding bits in memory are read or written by the hardware. On > write, they might not be touched, or they might be filled with garbage, > or all zeros, or all 1's, or a "reserved" not-quite garbage value. > Probably closest the latter, with the actual bits being all 0 or all > 1. On read, they might be ignored or checked for garbage. I think > they are ignored for this file.d AMD documentation says the upper 16 bits are "reserved,ignored" which means their value is indeterminate, but the cpu doesn't care about them.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
