On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 21:52 +0300, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: > On 09.09.15 19:22, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 21:01 +0300, ivan.khoronzhuk wrote: > > > Hi, Andreas > > > > > > On 07.09.15 14:43, Andreas Bießmann wrote: > > > > From: Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> > > > > > > > > introduce BIT() definition, used in at91_udc gadget > > > > driver. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> > > > > [remove all other occurrences of BIT(x) definition] > > > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Bießmann <andreas.de...@googlemail.com> > > > > --- > > > > Full buildman is running > > > > > > > > > > .... > > > > > > > > > > > +#define BIT(nr) (1UL << (nr)) > > > > > > Why UL? Why not simply 1 << (nr)? > > > > That would give the wrong result for nr == 31 if used as a 64-bit number, > > and > Did you mean with 64-bit signed number?
No. "u64 x = 1 << 31" will put 0xffffffff80000000 in x, because (unlike 0x80000000 as a constant) "1 << 31" is signed. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
