On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 12:30:43PM +0100, Marek Behún wrote: > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 12:56:42 +0200 > Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 10:54:18AM +0100, Marek Behún wrote: > > > I thought that static inline functions are preferred to macros, since > > > compiler warns better if they are used incorrectly... > > > > Citation needed. > > Just search for substring "instead of macro" in git log, there are > multiple such changes that were accepted since it provides better > typechecking. I am not saying it is documented anywhere, just that I > thought it was preffered. > > > Also, how do static inline functions wrapped in macros > > (i.e. your patch) stack up against your claim about better warnings? > > If they are defined as functions (they don't have to be inline, > of course) instead of macros and they are used incorrectly, the compiler > provides more readable warnings. (Yes, in current versions of gcc it is > much better than in the past, but still there are more lines of > warnings printed: "in expansion of macro"...). Ok, but I mean, we're not even in contradiction at this point? I only provided you macro definitions of pla_ocp_* and usb_ocp_* to prove that they can be defined in a cleaner way than your attempt. If you still think it's worth having the pla_ocp_* and usb_ocp_* helpers defined as separate functions just to avoid passing the extra MCU_TYPE_* argument, then go ahead.
