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]

Message-ID: <1153521067.44c155ab6b7d4@portal.student.luth.se>
Date:	Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:31:07 +0200
From:	ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	Vadim Lobanov <vlobanov@...akeasy.net>,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
	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>:

> ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/asm-i386/types.h b/include/asm-i386/types.h
> > index 4b4b295..841792b 100644
> > --- a/include/asm-i386/types.h
> > +++ b/include/asm-i386/types.h
> > @@ -1,6 +1,13 @@
> >  #ifndef _I386_TYPES_H
> >  #define _I386_TYPES_H
> >  
> > +#if defined(__GNUC__)
> > +typedef _Bool bool;
> > +#else
> > +#warning You compiler doesn't seem to support boolean types, will set
> 'bool' as
> > an 'unsigned int'
> > +typedef unsigned int bool;
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> >  
> >  typedef unsigned short umode_t;
> 
> Just delete the #ifdef and assume its either gcc, or a compatible 
> compiler.  That's what we assume with other data types.

You are right. Will remove it.
Just remembered one of reasons I had version-check before, how about linux 2.4?
What I understand, they have the same drivers as 2.6 but they have not commited
to use gcc >= 3. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Otherwise the discussion about
alternetiv bool-type is off no relevence anymore.

> 
> 
> > @@ -10,6 +17,8 @@ typedef unsigned short umode_t;
> >   * header files exported to user space
> >   */
> >  
> > +typedef bool __u1;
> > +
> >  typedef __signed__ char __s8;
> >  typedef unsigned char __u8;
> >  
> > @@ -36,6 +45,8 @@ #define BITS_PER_LONG 32
> >  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> >  
> >  
> > +typedef bool u1;
> > +
> >  typedef signed char s8;
> >  typedef unsigned char u8;
> >  
> 
> I wouldn't bother with these types.  Nobody uses creates in their own 
> hand-crafted bool uses, so I don't think people would suddenly start.

Removed

/Richard
-
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/