On Wed, 22 Nov 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > >
> > > Jan, would you be willing to accept that other maintainers have a
> > > preference for having a single MACRO even if suboptimal?
> >
> > I can live with that, even if I'm surprised by this perspective that others
> > take. How can we, in revi
Jan, would you be willing to accept that other maintainers have a
preference for having a single MACRO even if suboptimal?
I can live with that, even if I'm surprised by this perspective that
others
take. How can we, in reviews, tell people to make sure arguments are
evaluated only once, w
On 22.11.2023 02:43, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 18/11/2023 02:46, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2023, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 17/11/2023 10:17 am, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As discussed in this thread [1], whi
On Mon, 20 Nov 2023, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 18/11/2023 02:46, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Nov 2023, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > On 17/11/2023 10:17 am, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > As discussed in this thread [1], which is about complying with MISRA C
> > > >
On 18/11/2023 02:46, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2023, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 17/11/2023 10:17 am, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
Hi all,
As discussed in this thread [1], which is about complying with MISRA C
Rule 10.1,
a macro was introduced to encapsulate a well-known construct:
/*
On Fri, 17 Nov 2023, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 17/11/2023 10:17 am, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As discussed in this thread [1], which is about complying with MISRA C
> > Rule 10.1,
> > a macro was introduced to encapsulate a well-known construct:
> >
> > /*
> > * Given an unsigned i
On 2023-11-17 11:17, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
Hi all,
As discussed in this thread [1], which is about complying with MISRA C
Rule 10.1,
a macro was introduced to encapsulate a well-known construct:
/*
* Given an unsigned integer argument, expands to a mask where just the
least
* significant n
On 2023-11-17 12:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.11.2023 11:17, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
Hi all,
As discussed in this thread [1], which is about complying with MISRA C
Rule 10.1,
a macro was introduced to encapsulate a well-known construct:
/*
* Given an unsigned integer argument, expands to a mas
On 17.11.2023 11:17, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As discussed in this thread [1], which is about complying with MISRA C
> Rule 10.1,
> a macro was introduced to encapsulate a well-known construct:
>
> /*
> * Given an unsigned integer argument, expands to a mask where just the
> least
On 17.11.2023 12:15, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 2023-11-17 12:04, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 17/11/2023 10:17 am, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> As discussed in this thread [1], which is about complying with MISRA C
>>> Rule 10.1,
>>> a macro was introduced to encapsulate a well-known co
On 2023-11-17 12:04, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 17/11/2023 10:17 am, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
Hi all,
As discussed in this thread [1], which is about complying with MISRA C
Rule 10.1,
a macro was introduced to encapsulate a well-known construct:
/*
* Given an unsigned integer argument, expands to a
On 17/11/2023 10:17 am, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As discussed in this thread [1], which is about complying with MISRA C
> Rule 10.1,
> a macro was introduced to encapsulate a well-known construct:
>
> /*
> * Given an unsigned integer argument, expands to a mask where just
> the least
>
Hi all,
As discussed in this thread [1], which is about complying with MISRA C
Rule 10.1,
a macro was introduced to encapsulate a well-known construct:
/*
* Given an unsigned integer argument, expands to a mask where just the
least
* significant nonzero bit of the argument is set, or 0 if n
13 matches
Mail list logo
