[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110403105246.GA11998@mail.gnudd.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 12:52:46 +0200
From: Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...pv.it>
To: nikai@...ai.net
Cc: rabin@....in, linus.walleij@...ricsson.com,
STEricsson_nomadik_linux@...t.st.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: nomadik: avoid assigning u32 to bool
>> Why? There are dozens of places in the kernel where this done, the code
>> generated should be the same, and it's pretty obvious what is being done
>> as it is.
>
> Primarily because we were asked to avoid casts to bool even if
> they are safe.
[I have studied, meanwhile]
Actually the point of Rabin is, I think, that the patch is not needed.
Our "bool" is the C99 "_Bool" type, for which the compiler
automatically converts all non-0 assignments to 1. Even if storage
is still one byte.
IIUC, the point of _Bool is allowing comparisong with "true", while in
general non-0 is considered true if evaluated in a conditional
but may be "!= 1" so "!= true" if compared explicitly.
You can compile a one-liner to check. I used a few more:
_Bool i[10];
int main(void)
{
i[0] = 1;
i[1] = 10;
return i[0];
}
/alessandro
--
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