| 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: 29 Aug 2006 01:43:34 -0400 From: linux@...izon.com To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Conversion to generic boolean I have to say, I think <stdbool.h> is a Very Good Thing. There are actually two stnadard C conventions for boolean return codes: 1) 0 = false, 1 = true 2) 0 = success, -1 = failure (or generally >= 0 and < 0) I generally like true = success, false = failure, which can require some edits of all the call sites if converting from the second convention. But in either case, I'd much rather have a function declated "bool" than "int", becuase then I *know* there are only two return values, and nobody has invented a return value of 2 for some reason. And, as others have noticed, the compiler can optimize using that information, too. (Conversely, if the convention to use bool where possible is well-established, then if you see "int", you *know* there are more than two possible return values.) I'm all for just #include <stdbool.h> and use "bool", "true" and "false". - 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