2016-02-04 22:22 GMT+01:00 Martin Roth <gauml...@gmail.com>: > I don't think we need redefinitions of TRUE/FALSE We have no canonical definitions for TRUE/FALSE right now. Contributions that use them (for whatever reason) tend to bring local copies, and that's what I'd like to avoid.
> How would people feel about adding something to the coding guide to > avoid magic numbers? Make that a separate thread please :-) Patrick > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:05 AM, ron minnich <rminn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:29 AM Patrick Georgi via coreboot >> <coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. TRUE/FALSE >>> Do we want such defines? If so, TRUE/FALSE, or true/false, or >>> True/False, or ...? >> >> >> should we start using bool ...? >>> >>> >>> 2. BIT16 vs BIT(16) vs (1 << 16) vs 0x10000 >>> I don't think it makes sense to go for a single one of these (0x3ff is >>> certainly more readable than BIT11 | BIT10 | BIT9 | BIT8 | BIT7 | BIT8 >>> | BIT5 | BIT4 | BIT3 | BIT2 | BIT1 | BIT 0), but I doubt we need both >>> BIT16 and BIT(16). >>> >> >> BIT16 is a constant. BIT(16) is a chance for things to go badly wrong, e.g. >> BIT(x-y) might produce some very strange problems. I kind of prefer the >> constant. >> >> ron >> >> -- >> coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org >> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot