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 591C5955 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 12:09:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3606C1BA for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 12:09:47 +0000 (UTC) From: Jani Nikula To: David Woodhouse , David Howells , "Eric W. Biederman" In-Reply-To: <1470310312.51922.25.camel@infradead.org> References: <87inw1skws.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <25598.1469113525@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <87poprsaza.fsf@intel.com> <1470310312.51922.25.camel@infradead.org> Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 15:07:48 +0300 Message-ID: <87wpjwohyj.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Dave Gordon , 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, 04 Aug 2016, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2016-08-02 at 13:48 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Thu, 21 Jul 2016, David Howells wrote: >> >=C2=A0 (3) Let's use bool a lot more for boolean values as the compiler= might be >> >=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 able to make better choices with it. >>=20 >> 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]. >>=20 >> BR, >> Jani. >>=20 >>=20 >> [1] http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/1463148278-23193-1-git-= send-email-jani.nikula@intel.com > > In that entire discussion I don't see any mention of a GCC PR being > filed. > > Why? I guess something along these lines: Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody's job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have. Dave (Gordon, Cc'd), you seemed to have the best grasp of what was going on, would you mind filing that GCC bug please? https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ BR, Jani. --=20 Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center