Alan Cox wrote:
Ar Gwe, 2006-08-04 am 16:35 +0200, ysgrifennodd Jes Sorensen:
The proposed patch makes it u1 - if we end up with arch specific
defines, as the patch is proposing, developers won't know for sure what
the size is and will get alignment wrong. That is not fine.
The _Bool type is up to gcc implementation details.
Which is even worse :(
If we really have to introduce a bool type, at least it has to be the
same size on all 32 bit archs and the same size on all 64 bit archs.
You don't use bool for talking to hardware, you use it for the most
efficient compiler behaviour when working with true/false values.
Thats the problem, people will start putting them into structs, and
voila all alignment predictability has gone out the window.
Regards,
Jes
-
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]
