On 12/27/2011 11:30 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 27 December 2011 14:13, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 12/26/2011 04:58 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> > void sd_enable(SDState *sd, int enable)
> >> > {
> >> > - sd->enable = enable;
> >> > + sd->enable = enable ? true : false;
> >>
> >> This kind of thing is why I don't like bool :-)
> >
> > /me leaps to bool's defence:
> >
> > sd->enable = enable should work just fine.
>
> This is true, but the code snippet also illustrates that it sits
> oddly to have the internal state variable be bool when the external
> facing function's API is clearly using the traditional C style of
> int-for-booleans.
We should change those too. bool is self-documenting.
> Plus 'bool' gives me C++ flashbacks :-)
And QOM doesn't? How about
glue(glue(glue(cirrus_colorexpand_pattern_transp_, ROP_NAME), _),DEPTH)?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
