Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:35:31 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Cc: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com>, "current@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org>, Maksim Yevmenkin <maksim.yevmenkin@gmail.com> Subject: Re: RFC: small syscons and kbd patch Message-ID: <49391203.9070009@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <20081205072229.GE18652@hoeg.nl> References: <bb4a86c70812021701i621fdcfjb6a58a7f5cf781d5@mail.gmail.com> <7d6fde3d0812040324y3bf0901cy1f4a6d961362c314@mail.gmail.com> <bb4a86c70812040724w43ddec15yab72920d80d879d3@mail.gmail.com> <20081205072229.GE18652@hoeg.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 05/12/2008 09:22 Ed Schouten said the following: > * Maksim Yevmenkin <maksim.yevmenkin@gmail.com> wrote: >> the idea was to ensure that kbd->kb_locked variable only takes values >> 0 (zero) and 1 (one). > > I often use constructs like these to do that: > > foo = bar ? 1 : 0; > > Maybe !!bar is a lot shorter to write, I think the line above is a lot > easier to read. Another variation is: foo = (bar != 0); I think that this is something in the middle. BTW, gcc 4.2 produces exactly the same assembly for all 3 forms. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49391203.9070009>