Messages in this thread | | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: RFC: booleans and the kernel | Date | 24 Jan 2002 11:28:46 -0800 |
| |
Followup to: <3C5047A2.1AB65595@mandrakesoft.com> By author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > 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. >
Noone is actually meant to use _Bool, except perhaps in header files.
#include <stdbool.h>
... then use "bool", "true", "false".
This is fine with me as long our version of stdbool.h contain the appropriate ifdefs.
-hpa -- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <amsp@zytor.com> - 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/
| |