linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean

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:	Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Vadim Lobanov <vlobanov@...akeasy.net>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
cc:	ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se wrote:
> > Citerar Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>:
> >> Also, you don't want to force 'unsigned char' on code, because often
> >> code prefers a machine integer to something smaller than a machine integer.
>
> > But isn't a bit smaller than a byte? Sorry, do not understand what you mean.
>
> For all processors, it is generally preferred to have integer operations
> performed on a "machine integer."  A machine integer is the natural data
> type of the processor.  If it's a 32-bit processor, the natural data
> type for the ALU is a 32-bit int.  If it's a 64-bit processor, the
> natural data type for the ALU is a 64-bit int.

If this is the case, then wouldn't "long" be preferable to "int"?

> 	Jeff

-- Vadim Lobanov
-
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/