Jan Engelhardt wrote:
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.
Actually, it's not coercion. It's the result of evaluating the value as
a boolean expression.
you write sparse support for actually checking things there's not the
slightest advantage in value range checking.
Jan Engelhardt
--
Peter Williams pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
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
