Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Jan 2002 19:00:13 -0700 | From | Erik Andersen <> | Subject | Re: RFC: booleans and the kernel |
| |
On Thu Jan 24, 2002 at 12:42:58PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > A small issue... > > C99 introduced _Bool as a builtin type. The gcc patch for it went into > cvs around Dec 2000. Any objections to propagating this type and usage > of 'true' and 'false' around the kernel? > > Where variables are truly boolean use of a bool type makes the > intentions of the code more clear. And it also gives the compiler a > slightly better chance to optimize code [I suspect]. > > Actually I prefer 'bool' to '_Bool', if this becomes a kernel standard.
Agreed, bool is nicer. Out of curiosity, esp wrt struct packing, how does gcc actully store a bool? A single bit? A full 32-bit word?
-Erik
-- Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/ --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons-- - 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/
| |