![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Alan Cox wrote: > Ar Gwe, 2006-08-04 am 16:35 +0200, ysgrifennodd Jes Sorensen: >> The proposed patch makes it u1 - if we end up with arch specific >> defines, as the patch is proposing, developers won't know for sure what >> the size is and will get alignment wrong. That is not fine. > > The _Bool type is up to gcc implementation details. Which is even worse :( >> If we really have to introduce a bool type, at least it has to be the >> same size on all 32 bit archs and the same size on all 64 bit archs. > > You don't use bool for talking to hardware, you use it for the most > efficient compiler behaviour when working with true/false values. Thats the problem, people will start putting them into structs, and voila all alignment predictability has gone out the window. Regards, Jes - 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: 2006-08-04 17:59 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||