Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:20:51 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: attilio@freebsd.org Cc: Davide Italiano <davide@freebsd.org>, svn-src-projects@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r247710 - projects/calloutng/sys/kern Message-ID: <201303041620.52100.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-FndBvLD_fU1ZZ3cGNtChfdtXyuBRt4Z_ci8daS08ZYdOKzg@mail.gmail.com> References: <201303031339.r23DdsBU047737@svn.freebsd.org> <201303041521.06557.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAJ-FndBvLD_fU1ZZ3cGNtChfdtXyuBRt4Z_ci8daS08ZYdOKzg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, March 04, 2013 3:41:05 pm Attilio Rao wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 9:21 PM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Monday, March 04, 2013 3:17:30 pm Davide Italiano wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:40 PM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> > On Sunday, March 03, 2013 8:39:54 am Davide Italiano wrote: > >> >> Author: davide > >> >> Date: Sun Mar 3 13:39:54 2013 > >> >> New Revision: 247710 > >> >> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/247710 > >> >> > >> >> Log: > >> >> - Use TRUE/FALSE in lieu of 0/1 for boolean_t variables. > >> > > >> > We have stdbool in the kernel. Why not use that instead of the Machish > >> > boolean_t? > >> > > >> > -- > >> > John Baldwin > >> > >> It was originally int, and a couple of days ago Attilio suggested to > >> move to 'boolean_t'. > >> Honestly, I didn't argue due to the relative little relevance of the > >> change, but actually I find the type change more explicative. > >> I have no strong objections to change it again (in particular because > >> I think you're suggesting to use bool to be C99 compliant, feel free > >> to correct me if I'm wrong). > >> > >> While here. After closer looking I realized boolean_t is widely used > >> in the kernel (e.g. sys/kern/). Is this just a common error or is > >> there something I'm missing? > > > > No, it's just older and bool is C99 as you noticed. I had thought that > > boolean_t was largely regulated to code from Mach (i.e. sys/vm) and that > > we should use bool for new code. > > Actually boolean_t is much more widespread in our kernel than the C99 > variant. Moreover style(9) doesn't advertise it either, neither the > necessity to conform to library defined C99 features (even if present > in the C99 standard, _Bool is still defined in stdbool.h which is an > header not present in our kernel). Err, I thought that mdf@ had proposed importing stdbool.h into our kernel already? Ah, yes, the requisite bits are in <sys/types.h>, so 'bool' works fine. I think for new code we should prefer C99's bool to boolean_t. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201303041620.52100.jhb>