Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:17:59 +0100 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [RFC 5/8] x86_64: Add UV specific header for MMR definitions |
| |
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
| |