On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 10:25 AM, Joey Pabalinas <joeypabalinas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 08:53:45AM +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: >> Both are equally correct so it looks to me as an unneeded change >> but I don't really mind. However, I had to adapt the corresponding >> test like this: >> >> -sizeof-bool.c:3:16: warning: expression using sizeof bool >> +sizeof-bool.c:3:16: warning: expression using sizeof(bool) > > Hm, giving it a second look over I think for consistencies sake > maybe we should just use "warning: expression using sizeof _Bool"? > > Since "bool" it's always a typedef, maybe it's best to just stick > to the type specified in the standard. > >> I don't find 'the sizeof(_Bool)' very grammatical. What about a simple: >> "the size of a _Bool" (or "the size of the _Bool type")? > > But yeah, I do agree it's probably best to nix the parentheses. > >> I don't think it's possible to change the size of _Bool, so I would remove the >> "By default" here above and just leave "GCC assigns ..." or more simply >> "GCC uses a size of 1 for the type _Bool"? > > Well yes and no. Though it's sort of obscure, the GCC manual does have > a -mone-byte-bool flag, the description of which is: >> > -mone-byte-bool >> > >> > Override the defaults for "bool" so that "sizeof(bool)==1". By default >> > "sizeof(bool)" is 4 when compiling for Darwin/PowerPC and 1 when >> > compiling for Darwin/x86, so this option has no effect on x86. > > So I figured since there is _some_ remote possibly of it not being 1 > it's marginalty better to word it this way. Yes, sure, I didn't know (or don't remember this flag). Cheers, -- Luc -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
