On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 08:17:15PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 18:43:22 -0500, John de la Garza said:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 11:20:29PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 18:54:00 -0500, John de la Garza said:
It should not be assumed that true will always be 1 as defined in include/linux/stddef.h, right?
No, I mean use an actual 'bool' type rather than 'int'. Consider this from kernel/softirq.c:
yes, bool has two possible values true and false
from include/linux/stddef.h: enum { false = 0, true = 1 };
Note that's an *anonynous* enum, which defines the two values, but it *doesn't* define an enum type that can be used to force type safety.
No, if you're converting a variable from int to bool, the *important* line is from include/linux/types.h:
typedef _Bool bool;
which ensures more type safety than the enum does.
right, I see that now so _Bool is a defined by the compiler and typedefed to bool