Re: Conversion to generic boolean

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux