Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean
From: Alan Cox
Date: Fri Aug 04 2006 - 10:21:48 EST
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
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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/