Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:15:02 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>, yuankuiz@codeaurora.org,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add a --strict test for structs with bool
 member definitions
Message-ID: <20180411081502.GJ4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <891d4f632fbff5052e11f2d0b6fac35d@codeaurora.org>
 <CAJZ5v0h=Jeb5JjjE9vNQM29xYAy-Ogmx1mycRv-hPJ1+m=edzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180410123305.GF4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <e22fb871b1b7f2fda4b22f3a24e0d7f092eb612c.camel@perches.com>
 <95477c93db187bab6da8a8ba7c57836868446179.camel@perches.com>
 <20180410143950.4b8526073b4e3e34689f68cb@linux-foundation.org>
 <b3d75281c3a7b4b217b612913894b346eaa3288b.camel@perches.com>
 <20180410150011.df9e036f57b5bcac7ac19686@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180410150011.df9e036f57b5bcac7ac19686@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 03:00:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:53:51 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2018-04-10 at 14:39 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:19:54 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > A struct with a bool member can have different sizes on various
> > > > architectures because neither bool size nor alignment is standardized.
> > > 
> > > What's wrong with bools in structs?
> > 
> > See above.
> 
> Yeah, but so what?  `long' has different sizes on different
> architectures too.

Right, so we have ILP32/LP64 for all our 32/64 bit archs respectively.
So only 2 possible variations to consider, and if you know your bitness
you know your layout.

(+- some really unfortunate alignment exceptions, the worst of which
Arnd recently removed, hooray!)

But neither says anything about sizeof(_Bool), and the standard leaves
it undefined and only mandates it is large enough to store either 0 or
1 (and I suspect this vagueness is because there are architectures that
either have no byte addressibility or it's more expensive than word
addressibility).

Typically GCC chooses a single byte to represent _Bool, but there are no
guarantees. This means that when you care about structure layout (as we
all really should) things go wobbly when you use _Bool.

If GCC were to guarantee a 1 byte _Bool for all Linux ABIs we could
reconsider.