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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 12:51:11 +0000 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz> To: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...ightbb.com> Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>, James.Bottomley@...eleye.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Conversion to generic boolean Hi! > > I like it for the annotation we get. > > > > int fluff; > > if(fluff == 0) > > > > This does not tell if fluff is an integer or a boolean (that is, what the > > programmer intended to do -- not the 'int' the compiler sees). > > If it had been if(!fluff), it would give a hint, but a lot of places also have > > !x where x really is intended to be an integer (and should have been x==0 or > > y==NULL resp.) > > > > Bool would not help much either unless declaration is immediately follows > use. I like Alan Sterns proposal ofencode return value in function name > better - actions should always return < 0/0 and predicates should always > be boolean equivalent. Sounds very reasonable. Even today, 90% of code follows that convention. Perhaps adding it to codingstyle would help? -- Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins. -- VGER BF report: H 0.254977 - 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