From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41477) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ys83G-0007xd-Gw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2015 07:08:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ys7rE-0004cd-0t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2015 06:56:19 -0400 Received: from blu004-omc1s6.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.17]:59454) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ys7rD-0004cQ-To for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2015 06:56:15 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 18:56:07 +0800 From: Chen Gang MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5550D270.4020202@twiddle.net> , <555127F8.1030604@twiddle.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gbk" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 05/10 v10] target-tilegx/opcode_tilegx.h: Modify it to fit qemu using List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: rth@twiddle.net, peter.maydell@linaro.org, afaerber@suse.de, cmetcalf@ezchip.com Cc: walt@tilera.com, riku.voipio@iki.fi, qemu-devel@nongnu.org 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: rth@twiddle.net >> To: xili_gchen_5257@hotmail.com; peter.maydell@linaro.org; > afaerber@suse.de; cmetcalf@ezchip.com >> CC: riku.voipio@iki.fi; walt@tilera.com; qemu-devel@nongnu.org >> 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