Anton Altaparmakov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Various places are doing things like
> >
> > typedef {
> > FALSE,
> > TRUE
> > } my_fave_name_for_a_bool;
> >
> > These are converted to
> >
> > typedef int my_fave_name_for_a_bool;
>
> Given that the kernel now requires gcc 3.2 or later, that already includes
> a native boolean type (_Bool)?
It does?
Is it any good?
bix:/home/akpm> cat t.c
void foo()
{
_Bool b = 1;
b += 2;
}
bix:/home/akpm> gcc -O -Wall -c t.c
bix:/home/akpm>
Sigh.
> Why not use that instead of "int"?
That'd be a separate patch ;)
> Also <stdbool.h> contains:
>
> #define bool _Bool
> #define true 1
> #define false 0
>
> So we could take the bool rather than _Bool, too given _Bool looks
> rather ugly...
We have a couple of private bools and a couple of private 'true's and
`false's so I guess it'd be a simple patch. I wonder if it would have any
surprising side-effects.
(I think using `bool' is a good thing - it makes the code more readable.
It's a shame the compiler's handling of it is so useless).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
