• BCsven@lemmy.ca
    127·
    5 days ago

    I don’t know, when you are dealing with this level of coding it should be top tier, and getting called out will make the person really review their next submission. The expectation that somebody always has to be nice to you while you fuckup, is not ideal. And I say that as a supervisor that is way too PC and nice to people whom unwittingly are sabotaging work, as a way to nurture them–but I honestly think it is counter productive

    • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
      147·
      5 days ago

      getting called out will make the person really review their next submission.

      Yeah or they’ll say “fuck this” and quit.

      The expectation that somebody always has to be nice to you while you fuckup, is not ideal.

      It’s hardly a fuck up. They named a function slightly poorly. As if Linus has never done that.

      • JamonBear@sh.itjust.works
        13·
        5 days ago

        Cmon, this is not about naming, this is about non-generic code in generic header.

        IMO hiding such a little operation behind a macro/function just hurt readability. Furthermore, considering that this function is only used once in the provided patch and that word ordering on RISC-V is not about to change anytime soon, it is perfectly fine to inline the code.

        • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
          33·
          5 days ago

          this is about non-generic code in generic header.

          (a << 16) | b is about the most generic code you can get. How is that remotely RISC-V specific?

          • zygo_histo_morpheus@programming.dev
            11·
            4 days ago

            Making a u32 pointer from two u16’s isn’t a generic operation because it has to make assumptions about how the pointers work endianess

            Edit: Actually, I’m wrong, didn’t think this through properly. See the replies