From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: including sparse headers in C++ code Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:29:45 +0100 Message-ID: <20101020072945.GA3232@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1286710919.24953.2.camel@thorin> <201010101352.10864.kdudka@redhat.com> <1286790249.24953.14.camel@thorin> <20101011191219.GD8537@feather> <1286981110.14103.86.camel@thorin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:54454 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758450Ab0JTH36 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 03:29:58 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1286981110.14103.86.camel@thorin> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Bernd Petrovitsch Cc: Christopher Li , Kamil Dudka , Tomas Klacko , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, Josh Triplett On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 04:45:10PM +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > rename the local variables "true" and "false" to "if_true" and "if_false", > respectively to not clash with the well-known "keywords" defined by C99. > This is similar to commit 0be55c9. These are not keywords... Said that, things like if (!cond->value) true = false; if (!true) true = cond; certainly reek of IOCCC. I'd rather avoid "if_true" as replacement, though. If anything, true_expr and false_expr would make more sense.