![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Michael Buesch wrote: > On Friday 21 July 2006 16:23, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >>> The changes are: >>> * u2 has been corrected to u1 (and also added it as __u1) >> Do we really need this? Is not 'bool' enough? > > I would say we don't even _want_ this. > A u1 variable will basically never be one bit wide. > It will be at least 8bit, or let's say 32bit. Maybe > even 64bit on some archs. It all depends on the compiler > plus the arch. > > We _don't_ want u1, because we don't get what we see. For this and 1000 other reasons, we don't want u1. Jeff - 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: 2006-07-21 23:17 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||