Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> writes: > Dear York Sun, > > In message <1357596628-27501-1-git-send-email-york...@freescale.com> you > wrote: >> 'bool' is defined in random places. This patch consolidates them into a >> single typedef. > > Has this been actually compile tested? > > ... >> --- a/include/linux/types.h >> +++ b/include/linux/types.h >> @@ -113,6 +113,8 @@ typedef __u64 u_int64_t; >> typedef __s64 int64_t; >> #endif >> >> +typedef _Bool bool; > > And what exactly would "_Bool" be?
_Bool is a C99 type (though I fail to imagine why). If using this, one might as well use the C99 header stdbool.h providing macros for 'bool', 'true' and 'false' instead of this. > Can we rather try and get rid of all this "bool" stuff instead? It's > just obfuscating the code... Indeed. -- Måns Rullgård m...@mansr.com _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
