On 10/09, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/10/8 3:30, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-10-07 at 23:33 +0900, Ju Hyung Park wrote:
> >> Isn't this bogus?
> >>
> >> "bool" type in Linux kernel is a typedef to "_Bool"
> >> and true/false is defined as 1 and 0 by enum at include/linux/stddef.h.
> >
> > Bog
On 2017/10/8 3:30, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-10-07 at 23:33 +0900, Ju Hyung Park wrote:
>> Isn't this bogus?
>>
>> "bool" type in Linux kernel is a typedef to "_Bool"
>> and true/false is defined as 1 and 0 by enum at include/linux/stddef.h.
>
> Bogus? Well, not really. It's just a neate
On Sat, 2017-10-07 at 23:33 +0900, Ju Hyung Park wrote:
> Isn't this bogus?
>
> "bool" type in Linux kernel is a typedef to "_Bool"
> and true/false is defined as 1 and 0 by enum at include/linux/stddef.h.
Bogus? Well, not really. It's just a neatening and it's
identical object code.
The idea
Isn't this bogus?
"bool" type in Linux kernel is a typedef to "_Bool"
and true/false is defined as 1 and 0 by enum at include/linux/stddef.h.
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Thomas Meyer wrote:
> Bool initializations should use true and false. Bool tests don't need
> comparisons.
>
> Signed-off
4 matches
Mail list logo
