[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44C3EDC6.5090404@garzik.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 17:44:38 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
CC: ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se, 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>,
Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>, larsbj@...lik.net
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 4)
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>>> +#define false false
>>>> +#define true true
>>> Can someone please tell me what advantage 'define true true' is going to
>>> bring, besides than being able to '#ifdef true'?
>> It
>>
>> (a) makes type information available to the C compiler, where a plain #define
>> does not.
>
> Do you mean preprocessor? C already knows about true from the enum.
I was describing the overall purpose of the enum + #define change, when
you take my "(a)" and "(b)" in sum.
>> (b) handles all '#ifndef true' statements properly
>
> Holy *, is there _really_ code in linux/ that depends on true being
> [not] defined?
I suggest re-reading the boolean patches in this thread, to answer that
question...
Programmer wanting to use boolean inevitably add an '#ifndef true' or
'#ifndef TRUE' style statement to their code.
Jeff
-
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