From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] refactor: use bitsizeof() instead of 8 * sizeof() Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:11:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20090723051112.GA9372@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <1248298475-2990-1-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> <1248298475-2990-2-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> <1248298475-2990-3-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> <20090723050711.GB9189@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7v3a8o6l3v.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Pierre Habouzit , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jul 23 07:11:21 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MTqaO-0004eM-Es for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:11:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751665AbZGWFLN (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:11:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751468AbZGWFLN (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:11:13 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:38226 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751334AbZGWFLN (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:11:13 -0400 Received: (qmail 8604 invoked by uid 107); 23 Jul 2009 05:13:16 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:13:15 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:11:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v3a8o6l3v.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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. Fair enough. I just wanted to point it out in case nobody thought of it. -Peff