Re: Conversion to generic boolean

[Peter Williams]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > > > That is error-prone. Not "==FALSE" but what happens if x is (for some 
> > > > reason) not 1 and then "if (x==TRUE)".
> > > If you're using _Bool, that isn't possible. (Except at the boundaries
> > > where you have to validate untrusted data -- and the compiler makes that
> > > more difficult, because it "knows" that a _Bool can only be 0 or 1 and
> > > therefore your check to see if it's not 0 or 1 can "safely" be
> > > eliminated.)
> > gcc lets you happily assign any integer value to bool/_Bool, so unless
>
> But, it coerces the rvalue into 0 or 1, which may be a gain.

Actually, it's not coercion.  It's the result of evaluating the value as 
a boolean expression.

> > you write sparse support for actually checking things there's not the
> > slightest advantage in value range checking.
>
>
> Jan Engelhardt


--
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
 -- Ambrose Bierce
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/