Re: Conversion to generic boolean

Richard Knutsson
2006-08-28T20:48:19Z

Nicholas Miell wrote:

>On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 14:17 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
>
>
>>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>Just would like to ask if you want patches for:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Total NACK to any of this boolean ididocy. I very much hope you didn't
>>>>get the impression you actually have a chance to get this merged.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>* (Most importent, may introduce bugs if left alone)
>>>>>Fixing boolean checking, ex:
>>>>>if (bool == FALSE)
>>>>>to
>>>>>if (!bool)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>this one of course makes sense, but please do it without introducing
>>>>any boolean type. Getting rid of all the TRUE/FALSE defines and converting
>>>>all scsi drivers to classic C integer as boolean semantics would be
>>>>very welcome janitorial work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I don't get it. You object to the 'idiocy'
>>>(http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/27/281), but find the x==FALSE -> !x
>>>a good thing?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>That is error-prone. Not "==FALSE" but what happens if x is (for some
>>reason) not 1 and then "if (x==TRUE)".
>>
>>
>
>If you're using _Bool, that isn't possible. (Except at the boundaries
>where you have to validate untrusted data -- and the compiler makes that
>more difficult, because it "knows" that a _Bool can only be 0 or 1 and
>therefore your check to see if it's not 0 or 1 can "safely" be
>eliminated.)
>
>
Yes, true. But there is no _Bool's in the kernel (linus-git), only one
in script/.

Richard Knutsson