lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: RFC: booleans and the kernel
    Date
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:0.025 / U:3.072 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site