[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean
    >>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Garzik <> writes:

    Jeff> wrote:
    >> A first step to a generic boolean-type. The patch just introduce
    >> the bool (in

    Jeff> Since gcc supports boolean types and can optimize for such,
    Jeff> introducing bool is IMO a good thing.

    >> -Why would we want it? -There is already some how are depending on
    >> a "boolean"-type (like NTFS). Also, it will clearify functions who
    >> returns a boolean from one returning a value, ex: bool it_is_ok();
    >> char it_is_ok(); The first one is obvious what it is doing, the
    >> secound might return some sort of status.

    Jeff> A better reason is that there is intrinsic compiler support for
    Jeff> booleans.

    Well late to the dicussion, but I still want to point out that forcing
    a boolean type of a different size upon existing kernel code is not
    always a great idea and can have nasty side effects for struct
    alignments. Not to mention that on some architectures, accessing a u1
    is a lot slower than accessing an int. If a developer really wants to
    use the smaller type he/she should do so explicitly being aware of the

    The kernel is written in C, not C++ or Jave or some other broken
    language and C doesn't have 'bool'. This patch falls under the
    'typedefs considered evil' or typedef for the sake of typedef, if you
    ask me.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-08-04 16:05    [W:0.027 / U:0.068 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site