![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 08:08:20PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:04:22AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > bitfields are only problematic on portable code, which this isn't. > > it's still crappy to read and a bad example for others. I personally think bitfield code is actually easier to read than manual shift/mask etc. Avoiding bitfields is just a rule of thumb for portability, but that one does not apply here. I would say Joern's recent comment on religion vs common sense for CodingStyle applies very well here. > And last time > I heard about UV it also included an ia64 version, but that's been > loooong ago. bitfield rules should be 100% the same between x86 and ia64 -Andi | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-03-26 06:41 [W:0.446 / U:0.030 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||