Re: Conversion to generic boolean

[Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>]

Nicholas Miell wrote:

> On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 22:55 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
>  
>
> > Nicholas Miell wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > 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.)
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > Yes, true. But there is no _Bool's in the kernel (linus-git), only one 
> > in script/.
> >
> >    
>
> Sorry, I was under the impression that the purpose of the generic
> boolean patch was to switch the kernel over to C's generic boolean.
>  
Oh no, my bad. Well, at least some like to do it (including me).
But you really have to bend it to make _Bool take another value then 0/1.
Regarding "== FALSE" and co., there is still no reason for them, other 
then bloater the code.

Richard Knutsson

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/