From: Pierre Habouzit Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:22:50 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] refactor: use bitsizeof() instead of 8 * sizeof() Message-ID: <20090723062250.GH4750@laphroaig.corp> In-Reply-To: <7v3a8o6l3v.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:09:56PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King 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 Pierre Habouzit Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346 Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131 Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332 37 Rue Pierre Lhomme 92400 Courbevoie