26 Jan
2016
26 Jan
'16
1:32 p.m.
On 26 Jan 2016, at 12:17, Jacob Erlbeck
<jerlbeck(a)sysmocom.de> wrote:
On 26.01.2016 11:22, Holger Freyther wrote:
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.
> On 22 Jan 2016, at 16:46, suraev(a)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