On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Michael Schwingen
wrote:
> Andreas Fritiofson wrote:
>> This would help to avoid picking a magic value for true.
>> #define false 0
>> #define true (!false) // this will actually evaluate to 1
>>
> IMHO, this is unnecessary obfuscation.
> The C standard guarantees
On Friday 29 January 2010, Andreas Fritiofson wrote:
> On the other hand, code that relies on specific values for true is
> IMHO buggy or at least error prone (especially if "true" == -1!!),
> which implies that the define shouldn't be used at all in comparisons.
That was implicit in the point I m
Andreas Fritiofson wrote:
> This would help to avoid picking a magic value for true.
> #define false 0
> #define true (!false) // this will actually evaluate to 1
>
IMHO, this is unnecessary obfuscation.
The C standard guarantees that this will evaluate to 1, so why not write
1 directly?
> On
This would help to avoid picking a magic value for true.
#define false 0
#define true (!false) // this will actually evaluate to 1
On the other hand, code that relies on specific values for true is
IMHO buggy or at least error prone (especially if "true" == -1!!),
which implies that the define sho
On Thursday 28 January 2010, David Brownell wrote:
> If you want to know why the standard uses 1, there are
> probably rationale documents circulating. I'd guess
> one of the reasons is to facilitate "bool == bit" type
> implementations ... signed bits are nonsensical!
Oh, and one more reason: "
On Thursday 28 January 2010, Austin, Alex wrote:
> ~/Projects $ size openocd.gcc
>textdata bss dec hex filename
> 915920 11600 90668 1018188 f894c openocd.gcc
> ~/Projects $ size openocd.clang
>textdata bss dec hex filename
> 902754 10684 90572
age-
> From: David Brownell [mailto:davi...@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 1:35 AM
> To: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
> Cc: Austin, Alex
> Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] Other compilers
>
> On Thursday 28 January 2010, Austin, Alex wrote:
> > +#if
On Thursday 28 January 2010, Austin, Alex wrote:
> +#ifndef true
> +#define true -1
ANSI-C defines true as "1" not "-1" ... best
to use that for compatibility.
I suspect I'll merge this portability patch with that change...
> +#define false 0
> +#endif
By the way, were those object sizes "size
So, just for curiosity, I decided to try llvm-clang to build openocd.
I haven't actually run the build yet, but it's just over half the
size of the gcc build, and compiled just a touch faster, too. Any
comments? The time output is from "make -j3" calls.
openocd-via-gcc:
real0m25.669s
user0
