lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] rcu: change return type to bool
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 10:46:50AM +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2015-05-24 at 10:10 +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > > On Sun, 24 May 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 2015-05-24 at 09:27 +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 23 May 2015, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > []
> > > > > > > - return sum;
> > > > > > > + return !!sum;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm I wonder if gcc is smart enough to do the above without the need
> > > > > > for !!? That is, will it turn to !! because the return of the function
> > > > > > is bool, or does gcc complain about it not being bool without the !!?
> > > > > > Not a criticism of the patch, just a curiosity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > gcc will not complain if you assign a unsigned long to a boolean
> > > > > as I understand it it is a macro and is not doing any type
> > > > > checking/promotion at all - so anything can be assigned to a bool
> > > > > without warning (including double and pointers).
> > > > > The !! will though always make the type compatible with int so it is
> > > > > a well defined type atleast as far as __builtin_types_compatible_p()
> > > > > goes, and !! also makes static code checkers happy (that are maybe not
> > > > > as smart as gcc) and it does make the intent of sum being treated
> > > > > as boolean here clear.
> > > >
> > > > 6.3.1.2 Boolean type
> > > >
> > > > When any scalar value is converted to _Bool, the result is 0 if the
> > > > value compares equal to 0; otherwise, the result is 1.
> > > >
> > > As I understand this applies to arithmetic operations so for
> > > bool x = false; int i = 42; x += i; x is defined to be true
> > > but here it is the return type and not an arithmetic operation
> > > so does this apply here without the !!?
> >
> > Yes, it does. return is an implicit conversion.
> >
> > 6.8.6.4 The return statement
> >
> > 3 If a return statement with an expression is executed, the value of
> > the expression is returned to the caller as the value of the function
> > call expression. If the expression has a type different from the
> > return type of the function in which it appears, the value is
> > converted as if by assignment to an object having the return type of
> > the function.
> >
> get it - thanks for the clarification !

Hello, Nicholas,

Were you planning to send an updated patch?

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-26 21:01    [W:0.035 / U:0.408 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site