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: <44D36E8B.4040705@sgi.com>
Date:	Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:58:03 +0200
From:	Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
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

Alan Cox wrote:
> 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.

Which is even worse :(

>> 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.

Thats the problem, people will start putting them into structs, and
voila all alignment predictability has gone out the window.

Regards,
Jes
-
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/