>> I was kinda planning on merging it ;)
>>
>> I can't say that I'm in love with the patches, but they do improve the
>> situation.
>>
>> At present we have >50 different definitions of TRUE and gawd knows how
>> many private implementations of various flavours of bool.
>>
>> In that context, Richard's approach of giving the kernel a single
>> implementation of bool/true/false and then converting things over to use
>> it
>> makes sense. The other approach would be to go through and nuke the lot,
>> convert them to open-coded 0/1.
>
> Well... we are programming in C here, aren't we ;)
I like it for the annotation we get.
int fluff;
if(fluff == 0)
This does not tell if fluff is an integer or a boolean (that is, what the
programmer intended to do -- not the 'int' the compiler sees).
If it had been if(!fluff), it would give a hint, but a lot of places also have
!x where x really is intended to be an integer (and should have been x==0 or
y==NULL resp.)
Jan Engelhardt
--
-
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]
