Philippe Mathieu-Daudé writes:
> On 1/13/19 10:41 AM, Leonid Bloch wrote:
>> On 1/11/19 9:14 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> We define 54 macros for the powers of two >= 1024. We use six, in six
>>> macro definitions. Four of them could just as well use the common MiB
>>> macro, so do that.
On 1/13/19 10:41 AM, Leonid Bloch wrote:
> On 1/11/19 9:14 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> We define 54 macros for the powers of two >= 1024. We use six, in six
>> macro definitions. Four of them could just as well use the common MiB
>> macro, so do that. The remaining two can't, because they
Hi,
On 1/11/19 9:14 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> We define 54 macros for the powers of two >= 1024. We use six, in six
> macro definitions. Four of them could just as well use the common MiB
> macro, so do that. The remaining two can't, because they get passed
> to stringify. Replace the
On 1/11/19 1:14 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> We define 54 macros for the powers of two >= 1024. We use six, in six
> macro definitions. Four of them could just as well use the common MiB
> macro, so do that. The remaining two can't, because they get passed
> to stringify. Replace the macro
We define 54 macros for the powers of two >= 1024. We use six, in six
macro definitions. Four of them could just as well use the common MiB
macro, so do that. The remaining two can't, because they get passed
to stringify. Replace the macro by the literal number there.
Slightly harder to read
