Citerar Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]>:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 10:38:20PM +0200, [email protected] wrote:
> > A first step to a generic boolean-type. The patch just introduce the bool
> (in
> > arch. i386 only (for the moment)),
>
> What's do special about i386?
Oh, nothing. Meant the patch is only for i386. Because I do not have any other
setup there were little reason to change for any more arches
> > -Why would we want it?
> > -There is already some how are depending on a "boolean"-type (like NTFS).
> Also,
> > it will clearify functions who returns a boolean from one returning a
> value, ex:
> > bool it_is_ok();
> > char it_is_ok();
> > The first one is obvious what it is doing, the secound might return some
> sort of
> > status.
>
> It should be obvious from name whether function returns int which is a
> boolean or int which is a number.
Yes idealy, but sometimes a "obvious" name for someone is a uncertain for others
+ if it is suppose to be an boolean, why not decleare it as one. Have seen quite
a few: int a; /* boolean */
> > -Why false and not FALSE, why not "enum {...} bool"
> > -They are not #define(d) and shouldn't because it is a value, like 'a'.
> But
> > because it is just a value, then bool is just a variable and should be able
> to
> > handle 0 and 1 equally well.
>
> -Why we wouldn't want it
> -C++ and Java fans will treat bool as a green light to the following
>
> if (!(flags == true))
> and
> if (!(flags == false))
Thank god (or someone) for all the C fans who codereview ;)
Have you actually seen code like that (please point me to the place in that case :)
> Please, show compiler flag[s] to enable warning[s] from gcc about
>
> _Bool foo = 42;
>
> Until you do that the whole activity is moot.
On it...
> > --- a/include/asm-i386/types.h
> > +++ b/include/asm-i386/types.h
> > @@ -10,6 +10,15 @@ typedef unsigned short umode_t;
> > * header files exported to user space
> > */
> >
> > +#if defined(__GNUC__) && __GNUC__ >= 3
> > +typedef _Bool bool;
> > +#else
> > +#warning You compiler doesn't seem to support boolean types, will set
> 'bool' as
> > an 'unsigned char'
> > +typedef unsigned char bool;
>
> Why unsigned char? Why not unsigned int? What would this do wrt
> bitfields?
I just took the smallest alternetive to a bit. Many uses an unsigned char as
boolean, others who uses integer should not suffer either (none of whom I have
checked).
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +typedef bool u2;
>
> What is it?
Oww, it should be u1 (unsigned 1-bit). Thanks!
-
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]
