From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [KJ][RFC][PATCH] BIT macro cleanup Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:37:32 -0500 Message-ID: <200702242237.33182.dtor@insightbb.com> References: <3b44d3fb0702230215o2fbd5a3y25729e481a447149@mail.gmail.com> <45DF6E20.9060604@student.ltu.se> <20070224111124.GB3609@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070224111124.GB3609@suse.cz> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: To: linux-joystick@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz Cc: Vojtech Pavlik , Richard Knutsson , Milind Choudhary , kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 24 February 2007 06:11, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > > The reason I don't like it with modulo is simply because it hides > > potential bugs (when x is to big). > > That would be my only concern - losing compiler warnings. > I think most dangerous scenario is when both shift operands are not constant but compiler will not help us in this case... -- Dmitry