Re: PATCH: Use enum instead of nested macros

["H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:00 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/10/15 Adam Nemet <anemet@caviumnetworks.com>:
>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 4:46 PM, David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
>>>> H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am checking in this patch to use enum instead of nested macros.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> +enum
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + ?REG_80 = 0,
>>>>> + ?REG_81 = REG_80 + 1,
>>>>> + ?REG_82 = REG_81 + 1,
>>>>
>>>> Am I missing something, or is every single one of your ' = foo + 1' in this
>>>> patch completely redundant?
>>>
>>> Do all compiler guarantee that bar == 1 with
>>>
>>> enum
>>> {
>>> ? foo = 0,
>>> ? bar
>>> };
>>>
>>> If yes, I'd love to get rid of "foo + 1".
>>
>> Yes. ?6.7.2.2#3:
>>
>> ?The identifiers in an enumerator list are declared as constants that
>> ?have type int and may appear wherever such are permitted.107) An
>> ?enumerator with = defines its enumeration constant as the value of the
>> ?constant expression. If the first enumerator has no =, the value of
>> ?its enumeration constant is 0. Each subsequent enumerator with no =
>> ?defines its enumeration constant as the value of the constant
>> ?expression obtained by adding 1 to the value of the previous
>> ?enumeration constant. (The use of enumerators with = may produce
>> ?enumeration constants with values that duplicate other values in the
>> ?same enumeration.) The enumerators of an enumeration are also known as
>> ?its members.
>>
>
> Great. I will make the change.
>

This is the patch I checked in.

Thanks.

-- 
H.J.

Attachment: opcodes-enum-1.patch
Description: Text document