Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:32:03 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: Zack Kirsch <zack@freebsd.org>, mdf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Use of bool / stdbool.h in kernel Message-ID: <201111301032.04102.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20111130154604.B949@besplex.bde.org> References: <CAMBSHm_Be0hCimgg0KpCFs24MHOW=LBczJbFZ3F1cOaCgrS8LA@mail.gmail.com> <20111130154604.B949@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:13:53 am Bruce Evans wrote: > On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 mdf@freebsd.org wrote: > > > At $WORK we have a hack in one of the *.mk files to allow including > > stdbool.h in the kernel and we use it extensively. This is not > > allowed by style(9), as far as I can tell, because the file is in > > include/stdbool.h and those files are not allowed to be included in > > kernel sources. > > Including stdbool.h in the kernel is not a style bug, but unsupported. > > > What I want to check on is, would it be acceptable to move stdbool.h > > from include/stdbool.h to sys/sys/stdbool.h (i.e. like errno.h) and > > then include it in the kernel as <sys/stdbool.h>? That is, is the > > Would be a larger style bug, especially if it were actually used. > Even its spellings of TRUE and FALSE are strange. Even in userland > stdbool.h is considered so useful that it is never used in src/bin > and is only used a few times on other src/*bin. src/bin never uses > TRUE of FALSE either. I suspect there is some bias here though due to the fact that there wasn't a standard bool type when most of this code was written. :) I don't think that means we have to forgo use of the new type now that it is in fact standardized in C99. I would be happy to have 'bool' available and the lowercase 'true' and 'false' are fine with me. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201111301032.04102.jhb>