Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: > to make clear: it COULD be -0, on intel at least it's -1 and thus > evaluates to TRUE, that's why it was unnoticed. > > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Enlightenment CVS > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Enlightenment CVS committal >> >> Author : barbieri >> Project : e17 >> Module : libs/evas >> >> Dir : e17/libs/evas/src/lib/include >> >> >> Modified Files: >> evas_common.h >> >> >> Log Message: >> Remove bugs with bitfield usage, make boolean usage clear. >> >> This patch fixes the problem with bitfield of signed types (ie: char), >> where the bit would be used for the signal, so 1 is considered -0 and >> thus 0. >> >> Move all the single bit fields to Evas_Bool, making it clear and also >> avoiding these problems since Evas_Bool is unsigned char. >> Compilers may complain about signed one bit bitfields, but it is severely broken if a signed one bit bitfield set to 1 evaluates to 0.
I would have thought that a signed one bit bitfield set to 1 normally evaluates to -1 which is != TRUE, assuming TRUE is 1. Furthermore, you should not assume anything about the signedness of char. It depends on compiler configuration. /Kim ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
