From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 7 May 2001 09:54:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 7 May 2001 09:53:56 -0400 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:50449 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 7 May 2001 09:53:51 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: page_launder() bug Date: 7 May 2001 06:53:44 -0700 Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA Message-ID: <9d69d8$g9f$1@cesium.transmeta.com> In-Reply-To: <15094.10942.592911.70443@pizda.ninka.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Disclaimer: Not speaking for Transmeta in any way, shape, or form. Copyright: Copyright 2001 H. Peter Anvin - All Rights Reserved Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Followup to: By author: Tobias Ringstrom In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > On Sun, 6 May 2001, David S. Miller wrote: > > It is the most straightforward way to make a '1' or '0' > > integer from the NULL state of a pointer. > > But is it really specified in the C "standards" to be exctly zero or one, > and not zero and non-zero? > Yes it is. > > IMHO, the ?: construct is way more readable and reliable. > In C99 one can write (bool)foo which is more readable than either, especially since that is really what one is trying to do. -hpa -- at work, in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt