On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> And casts to/from bool, perhaps. To squish the warning we'd do things
> like a_bool = !!a_int. That generates extra code, but gcc internally
> generates extra code for a_bool = a_int anyway, and a quick test here
> indicates that the generated code is identical (testl/setne).
It *has* to generate extra code. A cast to Bool is very much not at
all like a normal cast. All the traditional C casts just do a pure bit
truncate (or zero/sign extension) keeping the same value.
A cast to bool is totally different. It is exactly the same as "test
against zero" - so it in no way acts like a traditional integer cast
to a one-bit integer.
I'm not 100% sure the use of "bool" is a great idea, and people who
use pointers to bools are crazy mf's (you can break the fundamental
property of bools by assigning random values through the pointer), but
_Bool certainly ahs the _potential_ to be a good thing. The reason I'm
nervous about it is exactly that people get it wrong so easily because
they do *not* act like any other C type (the whole pointer-to-bool
thing being one example of people doing bad things - I personally
would be much happier if _Bool acted more like a one-bit bitfield and
could not have its address taken).
Linus
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href