> Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > Where variables are truly boolean use of a bool type makes the
> > > intentions of the code more clear. And it also gives the compiler a
> > > slightly better chance to optimize code [I suspect].
> >
> > Unlikely. The compiler can already figure this sort of thing out from
> > context.
>
> X, true, and false are of type int.
> If one tests X==false and then later on tests X==true, how does the
> compiler know the entire domain has been tested?
Because you never test against X==true. You always test X!=false. This is
the C way.
> Or a switch statement... if both true and false are covered,
> there is no need for a 'default'.
Your cases are false and default.
-- "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/