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: <44D370ED.2050605@sgi.com>
Date:	Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:08:13 +0200
From:	Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>
To:	Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, 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

Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Jes Sorensen <jes@....com> writes:
>> Thats the problem, people will start putting them into structs, and
>> voila all alignment predictability has gone out the window.
> 
> Just like trying to predict the alignment of any other C type.

Well in that case, could you list the size of it for all Linux archs
please? We know that today long is the only one that differs and that
m68k has horrible natural alignment rules for historical reasons, but
besides that it's pretty sane.

Just because something exists doesn't mean using it is a good thing.
Just like gcc supporting exceptions :)

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/