Jeff Garzik wrote:
H. Peter Anvin wrote:There is no enum involved.There should be. It makes more information available to the C compiler, and it makes useful symbols available to the debugger.
_Bool is a native C type; it has all the information the C compiler needs. -hpa - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] include/linux: Defining bool, false and true
- From: Jeff Garzik <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] include/linux: Defining bool, false and true
- References:
- [PATCH 0/2] A generic boolean-type
- From: [email protected]
- [PATCH 1/2] include/linux: Defining bool, false and true
- From: [email protected]
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] include/linux: Defining bool, false and true
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] include/linux: Defining bool, false and true
- From: [email protected]
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] include/linux: Defining bool, false and true
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] include/linux: Defining bool, false and true
- From: Jeff Garzik <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 0/2] A generic boolean-type
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/2] include/linux: Defining bool, false and true
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/2] include/linux: Defining bool, false and true
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/2] include/linux: Defining bool, false and true
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/2] include/linux: Defining bool, false and true
- Index(es):
 |