lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 1/1] consolidate TRUE and FALSE
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Various places are doing things like
> >
> > typedef {
> > FALSE,
> > TRUE
> > } my_fave_name_for_a_bool;
> >
> > These are converted to
> >
> > typedef int my_fave_name_for_a_bool;
>
> Given that the kernel now requires gcc 3.2 or later, that already includes
> a native boolean type (_Bool)?

It does?

Is it any good?

bix:/home/akpm> cat t.c
void foo()
{
_Bool b = 1;

b += 2;
}
bix:/home/akpm> gcc -O -Wall -c t.c
bix:/home/akpm>

Sigh.

> Why not use that instead of "int"?

That'd be a separate patch ;)

> Also <stdbool.h> contains:
>
> #define bool _Bool
> #define true 1
> #define false 0
>
> So we could take the bool rather than _Bool, too given _Bool looks
> rather ugly...

We have a couple of private bools and a couple of private 'true's and
`false's so I guess it'd be a simple patch. I wonder if it would have any
surprising side-effects.

(I think using `bool' is a good thing - it makes the code more readable.
It's a shame the compiler's handling of it is so useless).

-
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: 2006-03-16 11:49    [W:0.171 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site