Welcome any other members' ideas, suggestions or completions for it. If one of another members also suggests to drop all uint8_t and uint16_t, I shall drop them (more explanations for dropping them will be better).
Thanks. On 05/12/2015 08:43 AM, gchen gchen wrote: > For me, I still stick to uint8_t, since all callers and callee always > treat it as uint8_t. It will make the code more clearer for readers. > >> Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 15:06:48 -0700 >> From: r...@twiddle.net >> To: xili_gchen_5...@hotmail.com; peter.mayd...@linaro.org; > afaer...@suse.de; cmetc...@ezchip.com >> CC: riku.voi...@iki.fi; w...@tilera.com; qemu-devel@nongnu.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10 v10] target-tilegx/opcode_tilegx.h: Modify > it to fit qemu using >> >> On 05/11/2015 02:06 PM, Chen Gang wrote: >> > On 5/12/15 00:01, Richard Henderson wrote: >> >> On 05/10/2015 03:42 PM, Chen Gang wrote: >> >>> -static __inline unsigned int >> >>> +static inline uint8_t >> >>> get_BFEnd_X0(tilegx_bundle_bits num) >> >> >> >> Do not change these casts to uint8_t. It's unnecessary churn. >> >> >> > >> > For me, it is enough to return uint8_t, and the caller really treats it >> > as uint8_t. So for the function declaration, uint8_t is more precise >> > than unsigned int for return type. >> >> I don't want to argue about this anymore. Drop all the uint8_t and > uint16_t. Thanks. -- Chen Gang Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed
