From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1678E413 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 10:48:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95592198 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 10:48:11 +0000 (UTC) From: Jani Nikula To: David Howells , "Eric W. Biederman" In-Reply-To: <25598.1469113525@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <87inw1skws.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <25598.1469113525@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 13:48:09 +0300 Message-ID: <87poprsaza.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] More useful types in the linux kernel List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 21 Jul 2016, David Howells wrote: > (3) Let's use bool a lot more for boolean values as the compiler might be > able to make better choices with it. This would be particularly useful for boolean one-bit struct bitfield flags (not least because assigning any positive even number to unsigned int foo:1 will result in 0) *but* we've found gcc produces worse code for bool:1 in our case. Details at [1]. BR, Jani. [1] http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/1463148278-23193-1-git-send-email-jani.nikula@intel.com -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center