linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 2)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:11:32 +0200
From:	ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	Vadim Lobanov <vlobanov@...akeasy.net>,
	Shorty Porty <getshorty_@...mail.com>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 2)

Citerar Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>:

> Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Friday 21 July 2006 16:23, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >>> The changes are:
> >>> * u2 has been corrected to u1 (and also added it as __u1)
> >> Do we really need this? Is not 'bool' enough?
> > 
> > I would say we don't even _want_ this.
> > A u1 variable will basically never be one bit wide.
> > It will be at least 8bit, or let's say 32bit. Maybe
> > even 64bit on some archs. It all depends on the compiler
> > plus the arch.
> > 
> > We _don't_ want u1, because we don't get what we see.
> 
> For this and 1000 other reasons, we don't want u1.

This is a classic "do what others have done (with some modifications) and not
give a thought about it"... it's gone!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/