On 01/07/2013 04:39:42 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear York Sun,
In message <1357596628-27501-1-git-send-email-york...@freescale.com>
you wrote:
> 'bool' is defined in random places. This patch consolidates them
into a
> single typedef.
Has this been actually compile tested?
...
> --- a/include/linux/types.h
> +++ b/include/linux/types.h
> @@ -113,6 +113,8 @@ typedef __u64 u_int64_t;
> typedef __s64 int64_t;
> #endif
>
> +typedef _Bool bool;
And what exactly would "_Bool" be?
It's a standard C99 type (as is bool, but _Bool comes directly from the
compiler rather than from headers).
...
> --- a/include/xyzModem.h
> +++ b/include/xyzModem.h
> @@ -97,11 +97,6 @@ typedef struct {
> #endif
> } connection_info_t;
>
> -#ifndef BOOL_WAS_DEFINED
> -#define BOOL_WAS_DEFINED
> -typedef unsigned int bool;
> -#endif
> -
> #define false 0
> #define true 1
And don't these remaining definitions of "false" and "true" cause
nasty build errors somewhere?
Yes, the definition of true/false needs to move along with the
definition of bool.
This seems broken to me. Can we rather try8 and get rid of all this
"bool" stuff instead? It's just obfuscating the code...
That's obviously a matter of opinion (I think "bool" is clearer than
"int"), but I'd like to point out that Linux's use of bool has been
growing, and U-Boot often borrows code from Linux...
Also, FWIW the compiler will generally allocate only one byte for a
built-in boolean, so there is a minor run-time benefit in some
situations.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
