On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 14:17 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> >>>Just would like to ask if you want patches for:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Total NACK to any of this boolean ididocy. I very much hope you didn't
> >>get the impression you actually have a chance to get this merged.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>* (Most importent, may introduce bugs if left alone)
> >>>Fixing boolean checking, ex:
> >>>if (bool == FALSE)
> >>>to
> >>>if (!bool)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>this one of course makes sense, but please do it without introducing
> >>any boolean type. Getting rid of all the TRUE/FALSE defines and converting
> >>all scsi drivers to classic C integer as boolean semantics would be
> >>very welcome janitorial work.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I don't get it. You object to the 'idiocy'
> >(http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/27/281), but find the x==FALSE -> !x
> >a good thing?
> >
> >
> That is error-prone. Not "==FALSE" but what happens if x is (for some
> reason) not 1 and then "if (x==TRUE)".
If you're using _Bool, that isn't possible. (Except at the boundaries
where you have to validate untrusted data -- and the compiler makes that
more difficult, because it "knows" that a _Bool can only be 0 or 1 and
therefore your check to see if it's not 0 or 1 can "safely" be
eliminated.)
--
Nicholas Miell <[email protected]>
-
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]
