Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:04:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:03:40 -0500 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:26632 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:03:28 -0500 Message-ID: <3C50688B.E87B421F@mandrakesoft.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:03:23 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik Organization: MandrakeSoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18-pre4 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Oliver Xymoron CC: Linux-Kernel list Subject: Re: RFC: booleans and the kernel In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Oliver Xymoron wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Where variables are truly boolean use of a bool type makes the > > intentions of the code more clear. And it also gives the compiler a > > slightly better chance to optimize code [I suspect]. > > Unlikely. The compiler can already figure this sort of thing out from > context. X, true, and false are of type int. If one tests X==false and then later on tests X==true, how does the compiler know the entire domain has been tested? With a boolean, it would. Or a switch statement... if both true and false are covered, there is no need for a 'default'. Similar arguments apply for enumerated types. -- Jeff Garzik | "I went through my candy like hot oatmeal Building 1024 | through an internally-buttered weasel." MandrakeSoft | - goats.com - 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/