On 02/24/2012 11:58 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 11:39 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 02/24/2012 08:52 AM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
+ srom_control = bcma_read32(bus->drv_cc.core,
+ BCMA_CC_SROM_CONTROL);
+ return !!(srom_control& BCMA_CC_SROM_CONTROL_PRESENT);
Does any compiler complain on returning sth like 0xF as a bool?
The compiler probably will not complain, but the caller could have
following:
if (bcma_sprom_ext_available(bus) == true) {
return;
}
BUG();
I guess you would see the BUG show up in your log with the function
returning 0xF.
If it's really
bool foo = a& b;
then the compiler has to compile that as if it was
u8 foo = !!(a& b);
since bool can only carry the values 0 and 1.
So the !! isn't necessary.
johannes
I guess the compiler will convert the return value to _Bool (aka. bool)
so indeed !! is not necessary. I will remove it.
Gr. AvS
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
