From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 11:22:25 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v5] bitops: introduce BIT() definition
In-Reply-To: <55EF2261.7090502@globallogic.com>
References: <1440176519-30102-2-git-send-email-hs@denx.de>
 <1441626234-16364-1-git-send-email-andreas.devel@googlemail.com>
 <55EF2261.7090502@globallogic.com>
Message-ID: <1441815745.29081.4.camel@freescale.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 21:01 +0300, ivan.khoronzhuk wrote:
> Hi, Andreas
> 
> On 07.09.15 14:43, Andreas Bie?mann wrote:
> > From: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>
> > 
> > introduce BIT() definition, used in at91_udc gadget
> > driver.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>
> > [remove all other occurrences of BIT(x) definition]
> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Bie?mann <andreas.devel@googlemail.com>
> > ---
> > Full buildman is running
> > 
> 
> ....
> 
> > 
> > +#define BIT(nr)            (1UL << (nr))
> 
> Why UL? Why not simply 1 << (nr)?

That would give the wrong result for nr == 31 if used as a 64-bit number, and 
would produce undefined behavior for nr >= 32 (though even with 1UL that 
would be undefined on 32-bit builds).

> What if I need set ULL bit on 32-bit system?
> Thanks for explanation.

Yes, ULL would be better.

-Scott