Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean

[Alan Cox]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/