From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: john@jjdev.com (John de la Garza)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 23:58:03 -0500
Subject: ternary vs double exclamation
In-Reply-To: <98149.1420420635@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
References: <CALD9WKwTq+QRPdWsBo5TeZ9Q-9hDW8cXt2-m5-C3B+6f17Sr8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<170340.1419901208@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
	<20150103235359.GA3588@vega.jjdev.com>
	<37532.1420345229@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
	<20150104234321.GA9214@vega.jjdev.com>
	<98149.1420420635@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Message-ID: <20150108045801.GA2818@vega.jjdev.com>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org

On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 08:17:15PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 18:43:22 -0500, John de la Garza said:
> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 11:20:29PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> > > On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 18:54:00 -0500, John de la Garza said:
> > >
> > > > It should not be assumed that true will always be 1 as defined in
> > > > include/linux/stddef.h, right?
> > >
> > > No, I mean use an actual 'bool' type rather than 'int'.  Consider this from
> > > kernel/softirq.c:
> >
> > yes, bool has two possible values true and false
> >
> > from include/linux/stddef.h:
> > enum {
> > 	        false   = 0,
> > 		true	= 1
> > };
> 
> Note that's an *anonynous* enum, which defines the two values, but
> it *doesn't* define an enum type that can be used to force type safety.
> 
> No, if you're converting a variable from int to bool, the *important* line is
> from include/linux/types.h:
> 
> typedef _Bool                   bool;
> 
> which ensures more type safety than the enum does.

right, I see that now

so _Bool is a defined by the compiler and typedefed to bool