[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44C3DB6C.6010800@garzik.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:26:20 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se
CC: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
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)
ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se wrote:
>>> +#undef false
>>> +#undef true
>>> +
>>> +enum {
>>> + false = 0,
>>> + true = 1
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +#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'?
>
> Assembly-code can not use enum but #define. That is the reason I find but there
> might be more.
That won't work -- the #define just makes the enum available, which
doesn't work at the assembler level.
But assembly code doesn't use this stuff, so no worries.
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