Re: [PATCH 2/3] refactor: use bitsizeof() instead of 8 * sizeof()
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:09:56PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:34:34PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >
> >> #define ARRAY_SIZE(x) (sizeof(x)/sizeof(x[0]))
> >> +#define bitsizeof(x) (CHAR_BIT * sizeof(x))
> >
> > Isn't our style to use all-caps for macros? I.e., BITSIZEOF?
>
> Perhaps but I'd say similarity between sizeof() and bitsizeof() calls for
> consistency in the lowercase in this particular case.
Yes, I usually have a few other macros that I use in code I write,
namely bitsizeof, fieldsizeof, fieldtypeof and a couple other, and all
are lowercased because:
- it's a safe macro (doesn't multi-evaluate its arguments), hence the
user doesn't really need to know it's a macro ;
- similarity with sizeof().--
Intersec <http://www.intersec.com>
Pierre Habouzit <pierre.habouzit@intersec.com>
Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346
Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131
Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332
37 Rue Pierre Lhomme
92400 Courbevoie