| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 00:06:51 +0200 (MEST) From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> Subject: Re: Complaint about return code convention in queue_work() etc. >> >Mixing up these two sorts of representations is a fertile source of >> >difficult-to-find bugs. If the C language included a strong distinction >> >between integers and booleans then the compiler would find these mistakes >> >for us... but it doesn't. >> >> Recently introduced "bool". > >I haven't seen the new definition of "bool", but it can't possibly provide >a strong distinction between integers and booleans. That is, if x is >declared as an integer rather than as a bool, the compiler won't complain >about "if (x) ...". Only Java will get you this distinction. I would be comfortable with a feature where conditionals (like if() and ?:) enforce a bool showing up in C/C++, but it's not easy to get into the mainline gcc. Jan Engelhardt -- - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists