Re: [PATCH 1/2] include/linux: Defining bool, false and true

H. Peter Anvin wrote:

That wasn't the point. The point was that bool should be a typedef to_Bool instead of an enum.


Quoting from the patch to which you are replying:

	+typedef _Bool			bool;

'enum' is only used for defining 'true' and 'false'.

	Jeff


-
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/

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: Jeff Garzik <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] include/linux: Defining bool, false and true
  - From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>

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: [PATCH 2/2] drivers: Removes colliding boolean definitions
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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]