On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Jerry Van Baren gerald.vanbaren@ge.comwrote:
J.C. Wren wrote:
I saw this comment: "Also i gather from e-mails on the list that Wolfgang does not like these references to "SZ_xx". Maybe that discussion took place before I joined the list.
If he wants it that way, fine. But that doesn't explain the "why". What's so offensive about the SZ_* defines?
--jc
Hi J.C.,
The SZ_* defines turns a simple math problem into a two finger problem... every time you see them, you need to put your finger in the code and look them up, only to find (1 << n), have to stick a second finger in the code, and have to do the math anyway.
One REALLY BAD problem is that idiots have been known to mis-define them rather than fix the code that uses them (seriously!). By using (1 << 20) directly, it removes that temptation.
A lesser problem is that they don't do anything, you still have to figure out that 1 << 20 is 1MiB. All they do is defer the pain.
You will also find other silliness, e.g. generating SZ_31M: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/27048/focus=27139 This silliness is the road to insanity: SZ_30M and SZ_29M and SZ_28.125M. (OK, I exaggerated on that last one. It would actually be SZ_28_125M.)
HTH, gvb
[snip]
Excellent explanation. Thank you.
I do like this (from the email link): (31 * 1024 * 1024). And it appears not to give Wolfgang indigestion :)
--jc