[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean
    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.


    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 16:27    [W:0.019 / U:0.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site