On 09.09.15 19:22, Scott Wood wrote:
On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 21:01 +0300, ivan.khoronzhuk wrote:
Hi, Andreas
On 07.09.15 14:43, Andreas Bießmann wrote:
From: Heiko Schocher hs@denx.de
introduce BIT() definition, used in at91_udc gadget driver.
Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher hs@denx.de [remove all other occurrences of BIT(x) definition] Signed-off-by: Andreas Bießmann andreas.devel@googlemail.com
Full buildman is running
....
+#define BIT(nr) (1UL << (nr))
Why UL? Why not simply 1 << (nr)?
That would give the wrong result for nr == 31 if used as a 64-bit number, and
Did you mean with 64-bit signed number? After fast glance seems there is no places, but if they are, this can add interesting fixes.
would produce undefined behavior for nr >= 32 (though even with 1UL that would be undefined on 32-bit builds).
What if I need set ULL bit on 32-bit system? Thanks for explanation.
Yes, ULL would be better.
-Scott