On sábado, 18 de novembro de 2017 08:19:41 PST Berthold Stoeger wrote:
> in core/pref.h we find the comment
> /* can't use 'bool' for the boolean values - different size in C and C++ */
The comment is wrong. It's been wrong for 18 years, since C99 introduced
stdbool.h.
--
Thiago Macieira - thia
Hi Stefan,
On Sonntag, 19. November 2017 23:07:43 CET Stefan Fuchs wrote:
> Am 18.11.2017 um 19:40 schrieb Berthold Stoeger:
> >> [...]
> >> In fact, even when you can depend on a modern compiler, it's usually
> >> best to restrict "bool" use entirely to just function return values
> >> and very l
Am 18.11.2017 um 19:40 schrieb Berthold Stoeger:
>> [...]
>> In fact, even when you can depend on a modern compiler, it's usually
>> best to restrict "bool" use entirely to just function return values
>> and very local use.
> I figure pref.h counts as such a local use, because it is purely an
> ap
On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Berthold Stoeger
wrote:
>
> I figure pref.h counts as such a local use, because it is purely an
> application-internal thing? Or would you prefer going the short (or char?)
> route?
We seem to depend on "bool" a lot, so might as well keep them that way.
I actual
On Samstag, 18. November 2017 19:11:53 CET Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Berthold Stoeger
>
> wrote:
> > Sure, but can these definitions be different for C and C++ on any sane
> > platform?
>
> Historically, yes, very much.
Thank you, that was an interesting read.
>
On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Berthold Stoeger
wrote:
>
> Sure, but can these definitions be different for C and C++ on any sane
> platform?
Historically, yes, very much.
"bool" didn't really exist in C, so you will find code that does
#define int bool
or
typedef int bool;
all over
On 18 November 2017 at 19:26, Berthold Stoeger
wrote:
> On Samstag, 18. November 2017 17:34:59 CET Lubomir I. Ivanov wrote:
>> On 18 November 2017 at 18:19, Berthold Stoeger
>> > On the other hand, many of the boolean settings are indeed defined as
>> > short. Shouldn't this be made consistent?
>>
On Samstag, 18. November 2017 17:34:59 CET Lubomir I. Ivanov wrote:
> On 18 November 2017 at 18:19, Berthold Stoeger
> > On the other hand, many of the boolean settings are indeed defined as
> > short. Shouldn't this be made consistent?
>
> both sizeof(short) and sizeof(bool) are implementation de
On 18 November 2017 at 18:19, Berthold Stoeger
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> in core/pref.h we find the comment
> /* can't use 'bool' for the boolean values - different size in C and C++ */
>
> Ironically, the same file is full of bool struct members, so it seems to rely
> on the fact that this comment i
Dear all,
in core/pref.h we find the comment
/* can't use 'bool' for the boolean values - different size in C and C++ */
Ironically, the same file is full of bool struct members, so it seems to rely
on the fact that this comment is wrong. The fact is confirmed by my tests:
#include
#include
i
10 matches
Mail list logo