On 04/05 03:10:25, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote: > On 05.04.2017 02:34, Ola Liljedahl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 05/04/2017, 01:29, "Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov" > > <dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > >> On 05.04.2017 01:00, Brian Brooks wrote: > >>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Ola Liljedahl <ola.liljed...@arm.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 04/04/2017, 22:14, "Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov" > >>>> <dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > >>>>> On 04.04.2017 21:48, Brian Brooks wrote: > >> > >>>>>> +#endif > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> +#if __ARM_ARCH == 8 && __ARM_64BIT_STATE == 1 > >>>>> > >>>>> #elif here please. > >>>> Brian this one is for you! :-) > >>> > >>> I am not sure where you are requesting the #elif, Dmitry. The first > >>> block is for ARMv7 and AArch32, and the second block is for AArch64. > >>> Each block is wrapped in a #if XYZ ... #endif. It's symmetrical. > >> > >> Yep. However it is more common (at least I'm more used to) having the > >> following code. It is more error prone and easier to follow. > > I assume you mean the style below is more *robust*? And/or errors are more > > easily detected/reported (handled by the #else/#error statements)? > > It is easier to follow: this code is for XYZ, this is for FOO, this for > BAR and this for ABC. If we have several ifs, it's harder to follow the > logic. Which code is enabled and when.
Well.. you still have the "if this then that" logic with either coding style. No matter how you parse it, it is the same amount of scope that you have to hold in your head. Agree with the use of #error, I consider it a best practice. > > > >> > >> #if XYZ > >> #elif FOO > >> #elif ABC > >> #else > >> #error unsupported beast! > >> #endif > >> > >> > >> -- > >> With best wishes > >> Dmitry > > > > > -- > With best wishes > Dmitry
