Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Mar 2006 02:42:34 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/1] consolidate TRUE and FALSE |
| |
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Various places are doing things like > > > > typedef { > > FALSE, > > TRUE > > } my_fave_name_for_a_bool; > > > > These are converted to > > > > typedef int my_fave_name_for_a_bool; > > Given that the kernel now requires gcc 3.2 or later, that already includes > a native boolean type (_Bool)?
It does?
Is it any good?
bix:/home/akpm> cat t.c void foo() { _Bool b = 1;
b += 2; } bix:/home/akpm> gcc -O -Wall -c t.c bix:/home/akpm>
Sigh.
> Why not use that instead of "int"?
That'd be a separate patch ;)
> Also <stdbool.h> contains: > > #define bool _Bool > #define true 1 > #define false 0 > > So we could take the bool rather than _Bool, too given _Bool looks > rather ugly...
We have a couple of private bools and a couple of private 'true's and `false's so I guess it'd be a simple patch. I wonder if it would have any surprising side-effects.
(I think using `bool' is a good thing - it makes the code more readable. It's a shame the compiler's handling of it is so useless).
- 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/
| |