> On May 18, 2015, at 22:28, Pedro Giffuni <p...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > >> Il giorno 18/mag/2015, alle ore 23:34, Bruce Evans <b...@optusnet.com.au> ha >> scritto: >> >> On Mon, 18 May 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >> >>>> Il giorno 18/mag/2015, alle ore 20:48, Bruce Evans <b...@optusnet.com.au> >>>> ha scritto: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 18 May 2015, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Log: >>>>> ddb: stop boolean screaming. >>>>> >>>>> TRUE --> true >>>>> FALSE--> false >>>>> >>>>> Hinted by: NetBSD >>>> >>>> This is not just churn to a style regression, but a type mismatch. >>> >>> It is an attempt to reduce differences with NetBSD. >> >> For that, apply the reverse change to NetBSD. > > Actually, the NetBSD code uses bool. (I hate CVS, commits are not atomic.) > >>> One of the complaints of hear from newcomers to the ddb code is that >>> the format is old-fashioned (it still had pre-ANSI headers not long ago) >>> and unmaintained. >> >> It is fairly well maintained (not churned to unimprove its portability). >> Why would newcomers want too look at it? > > Unrelated fun: last year a student started adding support for CTF and pretty > printing of the kernel structures. I think the NetBSD guys have been having > fun with Lua. > > >>>>> Modified: head/sys/ddb/db_break.c >>>>> ============================================================================== >>>>> --- head/sys/ddb/db_break.c Mon May 18 22:14:06 2015 >>>>> (r283087) >>>>> +++ head/sys/ddb/db_break.c Mon May 18 22:27:46 2015 >>>>> (r283088) >>>>> @@ -155,12 +155,12 @@ db_find_breakpoint_here(db_addr_t addr) >>>>> return db_find_breakpoint(db_map_addr(addr), addr); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> -static boolean_t db_breakpoints_inserted = TRUE; >>>>> +static boolean_t db_breakpoints_inserted = true; >>>> >>>> This code hasn't been churned to use the boolean type. It still uses >>>> boolean_t, which is plain int. TRUE and FALSE go with this type. true >>>> and false go with the boolean type. This probably makes no difference, >>>> because TRUE happens to be implemented with the same value as true and >>>> there are lots of implicit versions between the types. >>> >>> Yes, I noticed the return types are still ints. It doesn’t look difficult >>> to convert it to use a real boolean type. In any case, I would prefer to go >>> forward (using bool) instead of reverting this change. >> >> That wuld be sideways. >> >> I forgot to mention (again) in my previous reply that boolean_t is a mistake >> by me. KNF code doesn't even use the ! operator, but uses explicit >> comparison with 0. The boolean_t type and TRUE and FALSE are from Mach. >> They were used mainly in ddb and vm, and are still almost never used in >> kern. I used to like typedefs and a typedef for boolean types, and didn't >> know KNF very well, so in 1995 I moved the declaration of boolean_t from >> Mach vm code to sys/types.h to try to popularize it. This was a mistake. >> Fortunately, it is still rarely used in core kernel code. >> >> The boolean type is also almost never used for syscalls. In POSIX.1-2001, >> <stdbool.h> is inherited from C99, but is never used for any other POSIX >> API. Using it for syscalls would mainly cause portability problems. > > OK, I do understand the kernel wants to keep the C dialect somewhat limited, > and adding stdbool.h doesn’t buy us any type safety here. > > I’ll revert the change (prob. tomorrow though).
Too bad. You could just convert bool to an enum, add a compile-time assert, and chase down all of the -Werrors with clang... ... Nevermind. Not fun :(.. _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
