Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
Hi!
7-Мар-2005 04:58 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote to [email protected]:
jo> I assume you are pointing out the use of hiword & loword versus what I used jo> I did this for two reasons, the 1st is that those macros are not in the jo> stable kernel's portab.h, so using them would just make a kernel that did jo> not jo> compile. Yes I could easily add them, but that wasn't the point of the jo> commits, jo> they were to fix specific issues whose changes I am reasonably sure have no jo> negative jo> side effects.
But adding things, which eases following fixes (and not breaks anything already existing) - what bad in this?
I did not say there was something bad, what I said was that my commit was to fix specific issues and at the time I did not want to commit anything else. I personally like cvs log and try to commit things in chunks so the log and diff are easy to follow for future references.
jo> Testing directly against 0xFFFF as a boundary condition is clearer and more jo> succinct jo> (to me) than testing if (0xFFFF & (unsigned)((pEntry->NumSect) >> 16u)) jo> equals 0, jo> hence my selection of it over the use of hiword.
But this (manual macro expanding) introduces more differences (in source and code) between different branches.
...
this manual macro expanding is what I do mentally when I see the macro; I was not referring to actually manually expanding the line in the source
Jeremy
------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id396&op=click _______________________________________________ Freedos-kernel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel
