>> > That is error-prone. Not "==FALSE" but what happens if x is (for some >> > reason) not 1 and then "if (x==TRUE)". >> >> If you're using _Bool, that isn't possible. (Except at the boundaries >> where you have to validate untrusted data -- and the compiler makes that >> more difficult, because it "knows" that a _Bool can only be 0 or 1 and >> therefore your check to see if it's not 0 or 1 can "safely" be >> eliminated.) > >gcc lets you happily assign any integer value to bool/_Bool, so unless But, it coerces the rvalue into 0 or 1, which may be a gain. >you write sparse support for actually checking things there's not the >slightest advantage in value range checking. Jan Engelhardt -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
