Re: [patch 1/1] consolidate TRUE and FALSE

[Andrew Morton]

Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Various places are doing things like
>  > 
>  > typedef {
>  > 	FALSE,
>  > 	TRUE
>  > } my_fave_name_for_a_bool;
>  > 
>  > These are converted to
>  > 
>  > typedef int my_fave_name_for_a_bool;
> 
>  Given that the kernel now requires gcc 3.2 or later, that already includes 
>  a native boolean type (_Bool)?

It does?

Is it any good?

bix:/home/akpm> cat t.c
void foo()
{
	_Bool b = 1;

	b += 2;
}
bix:/home/akpm> gcc -O -Wall -c t.c
bix:/home/akpm> 

Sigh.

>  Why not use that instead of "int"?

That'd be a separate patch ;)

>  Also <stdbool.h> contains:
> 
>  #define bool	_Bool
>  #define true	1
>  #define false	0
> 
>  So we could take the bool rather than _Bool, too given _Bool looks 
>  rather ugly...

We have a couple of private bools and a couple of private 'true's and
`false's so I guess it'd be a simple patch.  I wonder if it would have any
surprising side-effects.

(I think using `bool' is a good thing - it makes the code more readable.
It's a shame the compiler's handling of it is so useless).

-
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/