Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 2)

[ricknu-0@student.ltu.se]

Citerar Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>:

> ricknu-0@student.ltu.se wrot> 

> > diff --git a/include/linux/stddef.h b/include/linux/stddef.h
> > index b3a2cad..498813b 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/stddef.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/stddef.h
> > @@ -10,6 +10,9 @@ #else
> >  #define NULL ((void *)0)
> >  #endif
> >  
> > +#define false	((0))
> > +#define true	((1))
> 
> I would say:
> 
> #undef true
> #undef false

Sorry about the delay but why the undef's? Found no problem to remove those and
think a warning would be good if a #define of false/true would show up
(otherwise, why have them there in the first place?).

> enum {
> 	false	= 0,
> 	true	= 1
> };
> 
> #define false false
> #define true true

/Richard Knutsson

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/