On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, ron minnich wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2008 1:43 PM, Juergen Beisert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> getCx86 and setCx86 defined as inline functions are working in all cases. So:
>> Do not use macros as functions.
>
> That's a good point. It's easy to get fooled by macros.
How about
On 06.01.2008 23:41, ron minnich wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2008 1:43 PM, Juergen Beisert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> getCx86 and setCx86 defined as inline functions are working in all cases. So:
>> Do not use macros as functions.
>>
>
> That's a good point. It's easy to get fooled by macros.
On Jan 6, 2008 1:43 PM, Juergen Beisert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> getCx86 and setCx86 defined as inline functions are working in all cases. So:
> Do not use macros as functions.
That's a good point. It's easy to get fooled by macros.
Thanks
ron
--
linuxbios mailing list
linuxbios@linuxbios
On Sunday 06 January 2008 18:32, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> How do we factor out such code? I prefer macros for simple function
> wrappers and functions for multiline sequences.
As we are working with hardware we should avoid any macros for function
replacement. There are ugly side effects.
On Jan 6, 2008 9:32 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do we factor out such code? I prefer macros for simple function
> wrappers and functions for multiline sequences.
I spend a lot of time with Plan 9 code nowadays. These are the Bell
Labs guys who invented it all. I am
Hi,
it seems we sometimes have lots of repetitive code sequences which could
be simplified by use of macros or functions. For a really shining
example see Torsten Duwe's recent patch titled "beautify m57sli mptable.c".
Cut-and-paste errors can happen and eliminating repetitive code reduces
the ris
