Re: [KJ] standardizing on boolean variables?

[Tobias Klauser <tklauser@distanz.ch>]

On 2007-01-21 at 09:36:33 +0100, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote:
>   how hard would it be to define a standard for a simple true/false
> boolean variable for the kernel?  gcc has had support for the C99
> "_Bool" type for years, and additionally defines, in
> include/linux/types.h:
> 
>   typedef _Bool                   bool;
> 
> so there's no reason to not use "bool" anywhere you need an actual
> boolean, is there?
> 
>   however, it seems everyone wants to define their own macros for
> the actual values "true" and "false":
> 
>   $ grep -r "define TRUE" .
>   $ grep -r "define FALSE" .
> 
> yeesh.  would there be a problem adding those two defines to
> "types.h", then deleting all those additional macro definitions?
> 
>   one might also get rid of redundant typedefs like:
> 
>   $ grep -r "typedef.*bool" .
> 
> where people insist on re-inventing their own booleans types.

There was an effort by Andrew Morton [1] to clean this up some time ago.
AFAIR the patch wasn't accepted but I don't remember the exact reason.

[1] http://marc2.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m\x114250357613993&w=2

Cheers,
Tobias
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors