I apologize for top posting, but I lost the email that I think my
point/question pertains to.

Part of this seems to be for compatibility / merging from drivers of other
OSes, no? If I am wrong, ignore me :-). If this is the case, would it be
better to create some common other area for things of this nature so that
it suffices to allow builds, but does not infect other areas of our own
code base?

Could be a poor idea, but just throwing it out there for the fsck of it.


On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Yar Tikhiy wrote:

:On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 08:08:24PM +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
:> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 09:53:46AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
:> > In message <20060628094221.GA50978@comp.chem.msu.su>, Yar Tikhiy writes:
:> > >On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 01:58:17PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
:> >
:> > >> NetBSD recently added SET, CLR, ISSET to sys/types.h (only if _KERNEL
:> > >> is defined).
:> >
:> > As one of the people who have worked with the original /bin/sh source
:> > code, I have a slight alergic reaction to attempts to paste over
:> > the implementation language with macros like these.
:> >
:> > Setting a bit in 'C' is spelled
:> > variable |= bit;
:> > not
:> > SET(variable, bit);
:> To my eye, if you're going to use "bit" to describe which bit is
:> being operated on, then you should *really* be doing:
:> variable |= (1 << bit)
:> and, obviously, SET(variable, bit) should do that, rather than
:> what has been proposed.
:That would require converting our device .h files from defining bit
:masks to defining bit numbers. I don't mind you doing that as long
:as SET is expanded to:
: ((variable) |= (1 << (bit)))
:-- note the bunch of roughly balanced parentheses ;-)
:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
:To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"