Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 05/10 v10] target-tilegx/opcode_tilegx.h: Modify it to fit qemu using

[Chen Gang]

Welcome any other members' ideas, suggestions or completions for it.

If one of another members also suggests to drop all uint8_t and uint16_t,
I shall drop them (more explanations for dropping them will be better).


Thanks.

On 05/12/2015 08:43 AM, gchen gchen wrote:
> 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: address@hidden
>> To: address@hidden; address@hidden;
> address@hidden; address@hidden
>> CC: address@hidden; address@hidden; address@hidden
>> 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.

Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed