Hi,
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 12:22:52 +0000 Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
Dear Lothar
On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 09:50 +0200, Lothar Waßmann wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 22:49:28 -0600 Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Lothar,
On 23 June 2017 at 00:30, Lothar Waßmann LW@karo-electronics.de wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:59:05 +0200 Lothar Waßmann wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:26:29 -0600 Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Lothar,
On 20 June 2017 at 04:25, Lothar Waßmann <LW@karo-electronics .de> wrote: > LCD_MAX_WIDTH, LCD_MAX_HEIGHT and LCD_MAX_LSBPP are not > alternative > values for one specific variable, but unrelated entities > with distinct > purposes. There is no use defining them as values of an > 'enum'.
Can you explain why #define is better? I prefer enum since they are a compiler construct instead of preprocessor (thus no need for brackets, no strange conversion things) and the debugger knows about them.
An enum defines alternative values for one specific entity (e.g. clauses for a switch construct), but not a collection of arbitrary data items.
> The 'enum' construct would fail miserably for an LCD > controller that > has a square max. frame size (e.g. 4096x4096).
What does this mean? I don't understand sorry.
Try your enum with MAX_LCD_WITDH == MAC_LCD_HEIGHT.
Can you please be explicit as to what the problem is? Sorry but I don't understand what you are driving at. Do you have a test program which shows the problem?
You cannot have two different enum items with the same value! Thus: enum { MAX_LCD_WIDTH = 4096, MAX_LCD_HEIGHT = 4096, }; won't compile.
Says who?
At least my gcc compilers even compile the following just fine:
enum { MAX_LCD_WIDTH = 4096, MAX_LCD_HEIGHT = MAX_LCD_WIDTH, };
Sorry, I was so locked in to the "normal" use of enum that I got confused.
Lothar Waßmann