On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> No, although I do try to avoid it in structures because I'm ever unsure
> of the storage type used. But yes, good suggestion, thanks!
I have to admit to not being a huge fan of "bool". You never know what
it actually is in C, and it's a possible source of major confusion.
Some environments will make it "int", others "char", and others - like
the kernel - will make it a C99/C++-like "true boolean" (C99 _Bool).
What's the difference? Integer assignment makes a hell of a difference. Do this:
long long expression = ...
...
bool val = expression;
and depending on implementation it will either just truncate the value
to a random number of bits, or actually do a compare with zero.
And while we use the C99 _Bool type, and thus get those true boolean
semantics (ie not just be a truncated integer type), I have to say
that it's still a dangerous thing to do in C because you generally
cannot rely on it. There's _tons_ of software that just typedefs int
or char to bool.
So even outside of structures, I'm not necessarily convinced "bool" is
always such a good thing. But I'm not going to stop people from using
it (inside the kernel it should be safe), I just want to raise a
warning and ask people to not use it mindlessly. And avoid the casts -
even if they are safe in the kernel.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>