Stef Hoeben wrote:
Hi,
+void ulong2bebytes(u8 *buf, unsigned long x)
+{
+ buf[3] = (u8) (x % 256);
+ x /= 256;
+ buf[2] = (u8) (x % 256);
+ x /= 256;
+ buf[1] = (u8) (x % 256);
+ buf[0] = (u8) (x / 256);
+}
I would prefer
#define ULONG2BEBYTES(p, x) do {\
(p)[3] = (x) & 0xff;\
(p)[2] = ((x) >> 8) & 0xff;\
(p)[1] = ((x) >> 16) & 0xff;\
(p)[0] = ((x) >> 24) & 0xff;\
} while(0)
instead of defining function for this.
Macros might be somewhat more dangerous in this case,
e.g. someone calling ULONG2BEBYTES(buf++, 12345) ,
but it's fine for me to change it into a macro.
forget it, a function is fine here. Btw: I would still prefer
a version using shifts and masks (as done in the macros) as I
personally find it easier to understand what the function is
actually doing (but that's just my personal taste).
Cheers,
Nils
PS: doxygen comments would be nice (even for internal functions) ;-)
_______________________________________________
opensc-devel mailing list
opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
