Hi Joe, 2016-12-21 2:55 GMT+09:00 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, 2016-12-21 at 01:20 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> Hi. >> >> I have not got any comment, but does this seem >> a right thing to do? > >> This code is working, but it should not depend on how "bool" is >> typedef'ed, or the bit position of I2C_M_RD. > > <shrug> > > I think bool can be guaranteed to be _Bool. > > So a change not necessary as the original code > has a c90 guarantee of the same result. > > 6.3.1.2 Boolean type > 1 > When any scalar value is converted to _Bool, the result is 0 if the value compares equal > to 0; otherwise, the result is 1. > Thanks for your comments! _Bool works very nicely. I have seen some (not very nice) projects that define like "typedef char bool;" So, I was wondering if I should write code that works regardless how bool is defined. Just my two cents. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
