lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: flags_t
Hi,

> >> 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.
>
> Cesar> Then the typedef could be architeture-specific. Or you could
> Cesar> use two typedefs.
>
> No it shouldn't, when using it in data structures you want it as is as
> unsigned long for proper alignment of data.

If that flag ends up in a structure, it's a bug.

> Wrong, a lot of people keep thinking lets add yet another 500
> typedef's but they don't buy you anything except complexity and
> confusion. You can still play games directly on the original data
> type.

What is complex about a typedef? It can increase readability, it makes
clear for what that variable has to used for and it clearly tells that
its value has to considered private.

bye, Roman

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.055 / U:8.976 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site