|Subject:||Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 05/10 v10] target-tilegx/opcode_tilegx.h: Modify it to fit qemu using|
|Date:||Tue, 12 May 2015 08:43:59 +0800|
For me, I still stick to uint8_t, since all callers and callee always treat it as uint8_t. It will make the code more clearer for readers.
> Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 15:06:48 -0700
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> CC: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10 v10] target-tilegx/opcode_tilegx.h: Modify it to fit qemu using
> On 05/11/2015 02:06 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> > On 5/12/15 00:01, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >> On 05/10/2015 03:42 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> >>> -static __inline unsigned int
> >>> +static inline uint8_t
> >>> get_BFEnd_X0(tilegx_bundle_bits num)
> >> Do not change these casts to uint8_t. It's unnecessary churn.
> > For me, it is enough to return uint8_t, and the caller really treats it
> > as uint8_t. So for the function declaration, uint8_t is more precise
> > than unsigned int for return type.
> I don't want to argue about this anymore. Drop all the uint8_t and uint16_t.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|