Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean

[Jes Sorensen]

Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Gwe, 2006-08-04 am 16:35 +0200, ysgrifennodd Jes Sorensen:
> > The proposed patch makes it u1 - if we end up with arch specific
> > defines, as the patch is proposing, developers won't know for sure what
> > the size is and will get alignment wrong. That is not fine.
>
> The _Bool type is up to gcc implementation details.

Which is even worse :(

> > If we really have to introduce a bool type, at least it has to be the
> > same size on all 32 bit archs and the same size on all 64 bit archs.
>
> You don't use bool for talking to hardware, you use it for the most
> efficient compiler behaviour when working with true/false values.

Thats the problem, people will start putting them into structs, and
voila all alignment predictability has gone out the window.

Regards,
Jes
-
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/