On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Eric W. Biederman
<ebied...@xmission.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Minor nit: return value of any is_* function is either true or false, so why
>> not
>> declare it bool?
>
> Because I am working on the core of the kernel and C compilers do weird
> things with bool variables (storing them in bytes...). I expected a
> type that the C compiler does not do weird things with would be more
> readily received on a path whose performance people are interested in.
Yeah, I have to say that I'm not a huge fan of "bool". It has some odd
properties, especially in memory (ie as a structure member).
For this kind of function return value it actually tends to work very
well, and in fact often generates slightly better code than "int". So
I don't _hate_ bool, and we've certainly had a lot more use creep in
lately, but I also don't really see "bool" as much of an upside.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
