Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:17:12 +0200 (MEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
cc: Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>,
       Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>,
       James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Conversion to generic boolean
In-Reply-To: <20060829114143.GB4076@infradead.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0608291416370.8031@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
References: <44EFBEFA.2010707@student.ltu.se> <20060828093202.GC8980@infradead.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.61.0608281255100.14305@yvahk01.tjqt.qr> <44F2DEDC.3020608@student.ltu.se>
 <1156792540.2367.2.camel@entropy> <20060829114143.GB4076@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 948
Lines: 24

>> > 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.

>you write sparse support for actually checking things there's not the
>slightest advantage in value range checking.


Jan Engelhardt
-- 
-
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/