Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 22:49:57 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r283088 - head/sys/ddb Message-ID: <406A7AE3-1891-4B2C-B917-14C150EBBAB5@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20150519113755.U1840@besplex.bde.org> References: <201505182227.t4IMRljx078812@svn.freebsd.org> <20150519113755.U1840@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Il giorno 18/mag/2015, alle ore 20:48, Bruce Evans <brde@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. 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. >> 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. > The boolean type is almost useless since C's type system is too weak to > distinguish between plain int used as a boolean and pure boolean. If > it were stronger, then it would complain about all the implicit conversions > between int and boolean, and the boolean type would be harder to use for > other reasons. > And I would like that to happen, but it would probably break a lot of legacy code. I thought boolean_t was a transition type. Pedro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?406A7AE3-1891-4B2C-B917-14C150EBBAB5>