This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Holger Freyther holger at freyther.de> On 26 Jan 2016, at 12:17, Jacob Erlbeck <jerlbeck at sysmocom.de> wrote: > > On 26.01.2016 11:22, Holger Freyther wrote: >> >>> On 22 Jan 2016, at 16:46, suraev at alumni.ntnu.no wrote: > >>> +/* we assume that x have at least 1 non-b bit */ >>> +static inline unsigned _leading_bits(uint8_t x, bool b) >>> +{ >>> + if (b) { >>> + if (x < 0x80) return 0; >>> + if (x < 0xC0) return 1; >>> + if (x < 0xE0) return 2; >>> + if (x < 0xF0) return 3; >>> + if (x < 0xF8) return 4; >>> + if (x < 0xFC) return 5; >>> + if (x < 0xFE) return 6; >>> + } else { >>> + if (x > 0x7F) return 0; >>> + if (x > 0x3F) return 1; >>> + if (x > 0x1F) return 2; >>> + if (x > 0xF) return 3; >>> + if (x > 7) return 4; >>> + if (x > 3) return 5; >>> + if (x > 1) return 6; >>> + } >> >> same coding style thing > > In such cases, the readability would suffer when putting the returns in > the next line. I'd rather right align the numbers after the '>', but YMMV. sure or somemthing like case 0xff..0x80: return 0; case 0x7F..0xC0: return 1; anyway, the above is okay and something we can argue with but if it is more than a "look-up table" then we should break the line.