![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Jes Sorensen <jes@sgi.com> writes: > 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 :( It's part of the ABI, just like any other C type. >>> 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. Just like trying to predict the alignment of any other C type. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." - 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 18:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||