Am 12.07.2012 22:21, schrieb Blue Swirl:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
Am 08.07.2012 21:22, schrieb blauwir...@gmail.com:
From: Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com
Use 'unsigned int' for bit numbers instead of 'unsigned long' or
'int'. Adjust asserts.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
On 10 July 2012 21:01, Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org
wrote:
On 10 July 2012 20:18, Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon,
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
Am 08.07.2012 21:22, schrieb blauwir...@gmail.com:
From: Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com
Use 'unsigned int' for bit numbers instead of 'unsigned long' or
'int'. Adjust asserts.
Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl
On 12 July 2012 21:18, Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org
wrote:
Basically 'int' has more natural
behaviour for reasoning about than 'unsigned' in ranges
where it's usually used (ie small ones).
But 'unsigned' is
Am 08.07.2012 21:22, schrieb blauwir...@gmail.com:
From: Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com
Use 'unsigned int' for bit numbers instead of 'unsigned long' or
'int'. Adjust asserts.
Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com
I haven't followed the original discussion and therefore don't
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
blauwir...@gmail.com writes:
From: Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com
Use 'unsigned int' for bit numbers instead of 'unsigned long' or
'int'. Adjust asserts.
I'd like to lodge a formal objection to this part.
There
On 10 July 2012 20:18, Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
There is no consensus. I recognize the power of maintainers to force a
change even without consensus. Use it wisely.
I thought I refuted all concrete
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org wrote:
On 10 July 2012 20:18, Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
There is no consensus. I recognize the power of maintainers to force a
change
On 10 July 2012 21:01, Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org
wrote:
On 10 July 2012 20:18, Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
There is no
blauwir...@gmail.com writes:
From: Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com
Use 'unsigned int' for bit numbers instead of 'unsigned long' or
'int'. Adjust asserts.
I'd like to lodge a formal objection to this part.
There is no consensus. I recognize the power of maintainers to force a
change even
From: Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com
Use 'unsigned int' for bit numbers instead of 'unsigned long' or
'int'. Adjust asserts.
Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com
---
bitops.h | 46 ++
1 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
11 matches
Mail list logo