Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:42:52 +0100 |
| |
Ar Gwe, 2006-08-04 am 10:03 -0400, ysgrifennodd Jes Sorensen: > 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 > impact.
Which is just fine. Nobody at the moment is using the bool type because we don't have one. Nor is a C bool necessarily u1.
> The kernel is written in C, not C++ or Jave or some other broken > language and C doesn't have 'bool'.
Oh yes it does, as of C99 via stdbool.h. The only reason its not always "bool" is compatibility considerations. Welcome to the 21st century.
Alan
- 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/
| |