> Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 19:53:17 +1000 > From: Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 11:01:54AM +0200, David Jander wrote: > > On Thursday 09 July 2009 02:04:59 Peter Hutterer wrote: > > > This patch adds the following three functions: > > > num_bytes_for_bits(bits) - the number of bytes needed to hold 'bits' > > > num_dwords_for_bytes(bytes) - the number of 4-byte units to hold 'bytes' > > > pad_to_dwords(bytes) - the closest multiple of 4 equal to or larger than > > > 'bytes'. > > > > Sorry to make this probably useless comment about naming, but while a byte > > has > > a defined length (8 bits), the meaning of "word" and "dword" in terms of > > length is undefined. By definition "word" in computing means the natural > > unit > > of data used by a particular computer design. This would be 32 bits on most > > 32-bit computers, and by consequence a "dword" would be 64 bit wide. > > Your definition of the names "word" and "dword" seem to be 16-bit > > platform-specific... not the most common platform for Xorg! > > Please, let's deprecate this flawed naming convention, and not use it in > > new > > code... it's confusing and just plain wrong when used on > > platform-independent > > code! > > > > This can be changed with a simple search+replace, I wouldn't mind changing it. > > Please suggest a better alternative naming though, the only appropriate > equivalent I can think of is num_4byte_units_for_bytes and similar which > does make the function names a tad long.
Seomthing with int16, int32, int64? _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
