![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Oliver Xymoron wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > 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]. > > Unlikely. The compiler can already figure this sort of thing out from > context. X, true, and false are of type int. If one tests X==false and then later on tests X==true, how does the compiler know the entire domain has been tested? With a boolean, it would. Or a switch statement... if both true and false are covered, there is no need for a 'default'. Similar arguments apply for enumerated types. -- Jeff Garzik | "I went through my candy like hot oatmeal Building 1024 | through an internally-buttered weasel." MandrakeSoft | - goats.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 11:15 [W:1.515 / U:0.220 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||