Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Jes Sorensen <jes@sgi.com>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>, ricknu-0@student.ltu.se,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <yq0lkq4vbs3.fsf@jaguar.mkp.net>
References: <1153341500.44be983ca1407@portal.student.luth.se>
	 <44BE9E78.3010409@garzik.org>  <yq0lkq4vbs3.fsf@jaguar.mkp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:42:52 +0100
Message-Id: <1154702572.23655.226.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 914
Lines: 23

Ar Gwe, 2006-08-04 am 10:03 -0400, ysgrifennodd Jes Sorensen:
> alignments. Not to mention that on some architectures, accessing a u1
> is a lot slower than accessing an int. If a developer really wants to
> use the smaller type he/she should do so explicitly being aware of the
> impact.

Which is just fine. Nobody at the moment is using the bool type because
we don't have one. Nor is a C bool necessarily u1.

> The kernel is written in C, not C++ or Jave or some other broken
> language and C doesn't have 'bool'. 

Oh yes it does, as of C99 via stdbool.h. The only reason its not always
"bool" is compatibility considerations. Welcome to the 21st century.

Alan


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/