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]

Date:	Sun, 23 Jul 2006 21:56:36 +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 wrot> 

> > diff --git a/include/linux/stddef.h b/include/linux/stddef.h
> > index b3a2cad..498813b 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/stddef.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/stddef.h
> > @@ -10,6 +10,9 @@ #else
> >  #define NULL ((void *)0)
> >  #endif
> >  
> > +#define false	((0))
> > +#define true	((1))
> 
> I would say:
> 
> #undef true
> #undef false

Sorry about the delay but why the undef's? Found no problem to remove those and
think a warning would be good if a #define of false/true would show up
(otherwise, why have them there in the first place?).

> enum {
> 	false	= 0,
> 	true	= 1
> };
> 
> #define false false
> #define true true

/Richard Knutsson

-
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/