Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:13:43 -0300 | Subject | Re: flags_t | From | Cesar Eduardo Barros <> |
| |
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 10:05:04PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote: > >>>>> "Cesar" == Cesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@nitnet.com.br> writes: > > Cesar> I have always been annoyed by the fact that save/restore_flags > Cesar> save/restore the flags using an unsigned long variable. I think > Cesar> it would be clearer to use > > Cesar> typedef struct { unsigned long _flags; } flags_t; > > Cesar> or something like that. > > No it wouldn't, on some architectures it is safe to do safe_flags() on > a short type, like a short which can then be used in the architecture > specific code.
Then the typedef could be architeture-specific. Or you could use two typedefs.
> > typedef's for the sake of typedef's is not a good idea. >
It's not for the sake of it, it's for extra type safety.
-- Cesar Eduardo Barros cesarb@nitnet.com.br cesarb@dcc.ufrj.br - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |