3 Jun
2015
3 Jun
'15
1:07 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:50:04AM -0700, Trent Piepho wrote:
BTW, with a little C algebra: const unsigned int val = value ? 0x1 << WM5100_GP1_LVL_SHIFT : 0; const unsigned int val = (value ? 0x1 : 0) << WM5100_GP1_LVL_SHIFT; const unsigned int val = (!!value) << WM5100_GP1_LVL_SHIFT; // definition of ! operator
And now we're back to where we started, so I don't really see why this is even necessary. The semantics of the ! operator will be changed in a future C version?
Yes, this is exactly the point I was trying to make.