Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Where variables are truly boolean use of a bool type makes the
> > intentions of the code more clear. And it also gives the compiler a
> > slightly better chance to optimize code [I suspect].
>
> Unlikely. The compiler can already figure this sort of thing out from
> context.
X, true, and false are of type int.
If one tests X==false and then later on tests X==true, how does the
compiler know the entire domain has been tested? With a boolean, it
would. Or a switch statement... if both true and false are covered,
there is no need for a 'default'. Similar arguments apply for
enumerated types.
-- Jeff Garzik | "I went through my candy like hot oatmeal Building 1024 | through an internally-buttered weasel." MandrakeSoft | - goats.com - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 21:00:23 EST