Jes Sorensen <[email protected]> writes:
> 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 :(
It's part of the ABI, just like any other C type.
>>> 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.
Just like trying to predict the alignment of any other C type.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [email protected]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
-
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]
