Someone showed code like
_Bool foo = 42;
and if we were to make the compiler warn about it that would mean we are
basically trying to change/manipulate the standard (I'm guessing). It's
probably not in the standard because it's such a moot point. However if we
were to use
if(foo)
{
...
}
we'd see it was true. That's because
FALSE == 0
and
TRUE == !FALSE (i.e. any value that isn't 0)
from the compiler's standpoint. Function that return 'true' for an integer
type (as opposed to a C++ standard-type bool) should be tested like
if(SomeFunction())
or
if(!SomeFunction())
instead of testing for equality
if(SomeFunction() == TRUE)
of
if(SomeFunction() == FALSE)
as the former (IMO) is as readable, if not more readable as the latter, and
it's likely to get optimised better. That and someone might give true AND
return a status by returning neither 0 or 1, in which case
if(... == TRUE)
would fail, as TRUE == 1.
And just as a note, you really should read the documentation (at least once)
for any function you use, and therefore know if it returns {FALSE, TRUE, ...
, TRUE} or {OK, ERR1, ERR2, ..., ERRn}
> > If this is the case, then wouldn't "long" be preferable to "int"?
Meh, it's all the same. I don't think 3 wasted CPU cycles is going to worry
anyone too much. Hell, sometimes int IS long, though I might be wrong there.
P.S. First post! Hello everybody.
-
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]
