Bitfield cleanup #204
Bitfield cleanup #204
Conversation
|
Fixed Windows build + spacing. |
|
I can't find any glaring issues and it looks like a nice addition. LGTM |
| // copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer | ||
| // in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the | ||
| // distribution. | ||
| // * Neither the name of Google Inc. nor the names of its |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Fixed license header copy-paste derp. |
|
|
||
| BitField& operator = (T val) | ||
| { | ||
| storage = (storage & ~GetMask()) | ((val<<position) & GetMask()); |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
…ianness-independent way. The underlying storage type of a bitfield can be any intrinsic integer type, but also any enumeration. Custom storage types are supported if the following things are defined on the storage type: - casting 0 to the storage type - bit shift operators (in both directions) - bitwise & operator - bitwise ~ operator - std::make_unsigned specialization
|
Fixed spacing and improved documentation a tiny bit (it said "u32" for the storage before, now it says T in general). |
| // Now make sure the value is indeed correct | ||
| EXPECT_EQ(val, object.full_u64); | ||
| EXPECT_EQ(*(s64*)&val, object.full_s64); | ||
| EXPECT_EQ((val>>9) & 0x7, object.regular_field_unsigned); |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Other than these few style comments, LGTM. Please migrate the rest of Dolphin to this new class too :p Would be cool if we could start forbidding new bitfields. |
This branch adds my BitField class (BSD-licensed) to the Dolphin code base and converts a small number of structures to it. In the long term we should target a full conversion of the source code, but at this stage I don't think the advantage justified the effort, especially since the monotonous task might be prone to stupid errors.
Cf. PR #157 for details.