On 01/08/2013 11:07 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Timur Tabi,
In message 50EC5D29.1070408@freescale.com you wrote:
_Bool has been introduced very late to any C standard, and you can still see this from the ugly, unnatural name.
It was introduced in C99, which is over 12 years old.
And how old is C? I think the "official" announcment was 1972, so that's more than twice as long without that addition.
work wit than a CLI. And I've seen more than one case where bugs were caused by using "proper bool types" like this:
i = 0; j = 0; k = 2;
if ((i | j | k) == true) ...
Ok, but this is just wrong. i, j, and k are not boolean types, so they should not be compared with 'true' or 'false'. I don't think you'll find any disagreement with that.
You are right. And I wrote that it's a bug. But this is what you can easily get from using boolean types. This is example has not been invented by me. I don't even claim that this was good programming style - all I want to say is that from what I have seen the boolean types are not a panacea; they cause new problems as well.
No disagree. How shall we close this? Will some change like below acceptable?
diff --git a/include/linux/types.h b/include/linux/types.h index 925ece7..f07ba41 100644 --- a/include/linux/types.h +++ b/include/linux/types.h @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
#include <linux/posix_types.h> #include <asm/types.h> +#include <stdbool.h>
#ifndef __KERNEL_STRICT_NAMES
@@ -113,10 +114,6 @@ typedef __u64 u_int64_t; typedef __s64 int64_t; #endif
-typedef _Bool bool; -#define false 0 -#define true 1 - #endif /* __KERNEL_STRICT_NAMES */
/*
York