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]

Message-Id: <1154706687.23655.234.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:51:26 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean

Ar Gwe, 2006-08-04 am 16:35 +0200, ysgrifennodd Jes Sorensen:
> The proposed patch makes it u1 - if we end up with arch specific
> defines, as the patch is proposing, developers won't know for sure what
> the size is and will get alignment wrong. That is not fine.

The _Bool type is up to gcc implementation details.

> If we really have to introduce a bool type, at least it has to be the
> same size on all 32 bit archs and the same size on all 64 bit archs.

You don't use bool for talking to hardware, you use it for the most
efficient compiler behaviour when working with true/false values.

Alan

-
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/