Vendors frequently ask us to use magic numbers, and have even requested at times that we remove explanatory text.
We'll never get rid of magic numbers in this world :-( ron On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:25 PM Patrick Georgi <[email protected]> wrote: > 2016-02-04 22:22 GMT+01:00 Martin Roth <[email protected]>: > > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:29 AM Patrick Georgi via coreboot > >> <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] > >> 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: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
