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?
After fast glance seems there is no places,
but if they are, this can add interesting fixes.
would produce undefined behavior for nr >= 32 (though even with 1UL that
would be undefined on 32-bit builds).
What if I need set ULL bit on 32-bit system?
Thanks for explanation.
Yes, ULL would be better.
-Scott
--
Regards,
Ivan Khoronzhuk
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
