linux-kernel - Re: Conversion to 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20060829054334.24362.qmail@science.horizon.com>
Date:	29 Aug 2006 01:43:34 -0400
From:	linux@...izon.com
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Conversion to generic boolean

I have to say, I think <stdbool.h> is a Very Good Thing.

There are actually two stnadard C conventions for boolean return codes:
1) 0 = false, 1 = true
2) 0 = success, -1 = failure (or generally >= 0 and < 0)

I generally like true = success, false = failure, which can require some
edits of all the call sites if converting from the second convention.

But in either case, I'd much rather have a function declated "bool"
than "int", becuase then I *know* there are only two return values,
and nobody has invented a return value of 2 for some reason.

And, as others have noticed, the compiler can optimize using that
information, too.

(Conversely, if the convention to use bool where possible is
well-established, then if you see "int", you *know* there are more than
two possible return values.)

I'm all for just #include <stdbool.h> and use "bool", "true" and "false".
-
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/