Consolidate bool type

'bool' is defined in random places. This patch consolidates them into a single header file include/linux/types.h, using stdbool.h.

All other #define, typedef and enum are removed. They are all consistent with true = 1, false = 0.

Signed-off-by York Sun <[email protected]>

---
Change since v1:
Move 'false' and 'true' to the common header file.

Change since v2:
Use stdbool.h
Consolidate all TRUE, FALSE, True, False, true, false

Need help to test on all ARCHs with differnt toolchains as well as USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC.

Quoted 1 line · York Sun

'bool' is defined in random places. This patch consolidates them

into a

Quoted 3 lines

single header file include/linux/types.h, using stdbool.h.

All other #define, typedef and enum are removed. They are all

consistent with

Quoted 11 lines

true = 1, false = 0.

Signed-off-by York Sun <[email protected]>

---
Change since v1:
Move 'false' and 'true' to the common header file.

Change since v2:
Use stdbool.h
Consolidate all TRUE, FALSE, True, False, true, false

Quoted 1 line

Need help to test on all ARCHs with differnt toolchains as well as

USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC.

Quoted 2 lines

I should put RFC in the subject as I am not able to compile all ARCH myself.

Quoted 21 lines · York Sun

Quoted 4 lines · York Sun

'bool' is defined in random places. This patch consolidates them into a single header file include/linux/types.h, using stdbool.h.

All other #define, typedef and enum are removed. They are all

consistent with

Quoted 7 lines

true = 1, false = 0.

Signed-off-by York Sun <[email protected]>

---
Change since v1:
Move 'false' and 'true' to the common header file.

Quoted 5 lines

Change since v2:
Use stdbool.h
Consolidate all TRUE, FALSE, True, False, true, false

Need help to test on all ARCHs with differnt toolchains as well as

USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC.

Quoted 2 lines

Quoted 2 lines

I should put RFC in the subject as I am not able to compile all ARCH myself.

So how do you see this patch becoming non-RFC? I think most people don't have every single toolchain. You should at least get a toolchain for a couple major architectures such as ARM. Usually RFC is for when you know the patch has issues, and don't want it applied yet even if nobody else finds fault with it.

Quoted 3 lines · Scott Wood

Quoted 2 lines · York Sun

On 01/23/2013 01:41 PM, York Sun wrote:
I should put RFC in the subject as I am not able to compile all

ARCH

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 1 line

myself.

So how do you see this patch becoming non-RFC? I think most people don't have every single toolchain. You should at least get a

toolchain

Quoted 1 line

for a couple major architectures such as ARM. Usually RFC is for

when

Quoted 3 lines

you know the patch has issues, and don't want it applied yet even if nobody else finds fault with it.

I know this version has problem. I am hoping more people get involved and test what they can. I tried the arm toolchain you pointed to me. I couldn't run MAKEALL for arm.

Quoted 13 lines · York Sun

Quoted 11 lines · Scott Wood

Quoted 3 lines · York Sun

On 01/23/2013 01:41 PM, York Sun wrote:
I should put RFC in the subject as I am not able to compile all ARCH myself.

So how do you see this patch becoming non-RFC? I think most people don't have every single toolchain. You should at least get a toolchain for a couple major architectures such as ARM. Usually RFC is for when you know the patch has issues, and don't want it applied yet even if nobody else finds fault with it.

Quoted 3 lines

I know this version has problem. I am hoping more people get involved and test what they can. I tried the arm toolchain you pointed to me. I couldn't run MAKEALL for arm.

Even before your patch, using USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC? How many boards failed?

Quoted 14 lines · Scott Wood

Quoted 13 lines · York Sun

Quoted 11 lines · Scott Wood

Quoted 3 lines · York Sun

On 01/23/2013 01:41 PM, York Sun wrote:
I should put RFC in the subject as I am not able to compile all ARCH myself.

So how do you see this patch becoming non-RFC? I think most people don't have every single toolchain. You should at least get a toolchain for a couple major architectures such as ARM. Usually RFC is for when you know the patch has issues, and don't want it applied yet even if nobody else finds fault with it.

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 3 lines

I know this version has problem. I am hoping more people get involved and test what they can. I tried the arm toolchain you pointed to me. I couldn't run MAKEALL for arm.

Even before your patch, using USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC? How many boards failed?

I don't know. Wolfgang brought it. Allen kindly offered help to verify on tegra which uses USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC.

Quoted 14 lines · Scott Wood

Quoted 13 lines · York Sun

Quoted 11 lines · Scott Wood

Quoted 3 lines · York Sun

On 01/23/2013 01:41 PM, York Sun wrote:
I should put RFC in the subject as I am not able to compile all ARCH myself.

So how do you see this patch becoming non-RFC? I think most people don't have every single toolchain. You should at least get a toolchain for a couple major architectures such as ARM. Usually RFC is for when you know the patch has issues, and don't want it applied yet even if nobody else finds fault with it.

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 3 lines

I know this version has problem. I am hoping more people get involved and test what they can. I tried the arm toolchain you pointed to me. I couldn't run MAKEALL for arm.

Even before your patch, using USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC? How many boards failed?

I don't know. Wolfgang brought it. Allen kindly offered help to verify on tegra which uses USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC.

Quoted 21 lines · York Sun

Quoted 20 lines · Scott Wood

Quoted 13 lines · York Sun

Quoted 11 lines · Scott Wood

Quoted 3 lines · York Sun

On 01/23/2013 01:41 PM, York Sun wrote:
I should put RFC in the subject as I am not able to compile all ARCH myself.

So how do you see this patch becoming non-RFC? I think most people don't have every single toolchain. You should at least get a toolchain for a couple major architectures such as ARM. Usually RFC is for when you know the patch has issues, and don't want it applied yet even if nobody else finds fault with it.

Quoted 3 lines

I know this version has problem. I am hoping more people get involved and test what they can. I tried the arm toolchain you pointed to me. I couldn't run MAKEALL for arm.

Even before your patch, using USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC? How many boards failed?

Quoted 3 lines

I don't know. Wolfgang brought it. Allen kindly offered help to verify on tegra which uses USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC.

Built and tested on tegra, no problems. I'm still seeing a lot of references to TRUE/FALSE even after this patch though:

$ git grep -e FALSE -e TRUE | awk 'BEGIN {FS = ":"} {print $1}' | sort | uniq

Quoted 26 lines · Allen Martin

Quoted 24 lines · York Sun

Quoted 14 lines · Scott Wood

Quoted 13 lines · York Sun

Quoted 11 lines · Scott Wood

Quoted 3 lines · York Sun

On 01/23/2013 01:41 PM, York Sun wrote:
I should put RFC in the subject as I am not able to compile all ARCH myself.

So how do you see this patch becoming non-RFC? I think most people don't have every single toolchain. You should at least get a toolchain for a couple major architectures such as ARM. Usually RFC is for when you know the patch has issues, and don't want it applied yet even if nobody else finds fault with it.

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 3 lines

I know this version has problem. I am hoping more people get involved and test what they can. I tried the arm toolchain you pointed to me. I couldn't run MAKEALL for arm.

Even before your patch, using USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC? How many boards failed?

I don't know. Wolfgang brought it. Allen kindly offered help to verify on tegra which uses USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC.

Quoted 5 lines

Built and tested on tegra, no problems. I'm still seeing a lot of references to TRUE/FALSE even after this patch though:

$ git grep -e FALSE -e TRUE | awk 'BEGIN {FS = ":"} {print $1}' | sort | uniq

Thanks, Allen. A long way to go.

Quoted 8 lines · York Sun

Quoted 7 lines · Allen Martin

Quoted 6 lines · York Sun

Quoted 5 lines · Scott Wood

Quoted 4 lines · York Sun

Quoted 3 lines · Scott Wood

Quoted 2 lines · York Sun

On 01/23/2013 01:41 PM, York Sun wrote:
I should put RFC in the subject as I am not able to compile

all ARCH

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 1 line

myself.

So how do you see this patch becoming non-RFC? I think most

people

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

don't have every single toolchain. You should at least get a

toolchain

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

for a couple major architectures such as ARM. Usually RFC is

for when

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

you know the patch has issues, and don't want it applied yet

even if

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 2 lines

nobody else finds fault with it.

I know this version has problem. I am hoping more people get

involved

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

and test what they can. I tried the arm toolchain you pointed

to me. I

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 1 line

couldn't run MAKEALL for arm.

Even before your patch, using USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC? How many

boards failed?

Quoted 2 lines

Quoted 2 lines

Quoted 2 lines

Quoted 1 line

I don't know. Wolfgang brought it. Allen kindly offered help to

verify

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 2 lines

on tegra which uses USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC.

Built and tested on tegra, no problems. I'm still seeing a lot of references to TRUE/FALSE even after this patch though:

$ git grep -e FALSE -e TRUE | awk 'BEGIN {FS = ":"} {print $1}' |  

sort | uniq

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 1 line

Thanks, Allen. A long way to go.

I thought I have replaced all #define, enum, typedef. I have left alone
those FALSE, False, false but add define like this

(quoted diff) +5 -0

+#include <stdbool.h>
+#define TRUE true
+#define FALSE false
+#define True true
+#define False false

Isn't that enough?

Quoted 11 lines

Quoted 1 line

I thought I have replaced all #define, enum, typedef. I have left alone those FALSE, False, false but add define like this

(quoted diff) +5 -0

+#include <stdbool.h>
+#define TRUE true
+#define FALSE false
+#define True true
+#define False false

Quoted 1 line

Isn't that enough?

It's enough to make it build, but it would be better to fix the users.

Quoted 11 lines · Scott Wood

Quoted 11 lines

Quoted 1 line

I thought I have replaced all #define, enum, typedef. I have left alone those FALSE, False, false but add define like this

(quoted diff) +5 -0

+#include <stdbool.h>
+#define TRUE true
+#define FALSE false
+#define True true
+#define False false

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 1 line

Isn't that enough?

It's enough to make it build, but it would be better to fix the users.

Let me try to run a script to replace all of them to "false" and "true".

York

Quoted 12 lines · York Sun

Quoted 11 lines · Scott Wood

Quoted 11 lines

Quoted 1 line

I thought I have replaced all #define, enum, typedef. I have left alone those FALSE, False, false but add define like this

(quoted diff) +5 -0

+#include <stdbool.h>
+#define TRUE true
+#define FALSE false
+#define True true
+#define False false

Quoted 10 lines

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 1 line

Isn't that enough?

It's enough to make it build, but it would be better to fix the users.

Let me try to run a script to replace all of them to "false" and "true".

York

Try this:

$ find . -type f -name \*.h -print | xargs perl -pi -e 's/(\b)FALSE(\b)/$1false$2/g'
$ find . -type f -name \*.h -print | xargs perl -pi -e 's/(\b)TRUE(\b)/$1true$2/g'
$ find . -type f -name \*.c -print | xargs perl -pi -e 's/(\b)FALSE(\b)/$1false$2/g'
$ find . -type f -name \*.c -print | xargs perl -pi -e 's/(\b)TRUE(\b)/$1true$2/g'
$ find . -type f -name \*.h -print | xargs perl -pi -e 's/(\b)False(\b)/$1false$2/g'
$ find . -type f -name \*.h -print | xargs perl -pi -e 's/(\b)True(\b)/$1true$2/g'
$ find . -type f -name \*.c -print | xargs perl -pi -e 's/(\b)False(\b)/$1false$2/g'
$ find . -type f -name \*.c -print | xargs perl -pi -e 's/(\b)True(\b)/$1true$2/g'

Quoted 56 lines · York Sun

Quoted 8 lines · York Sun

Quoted 7 lines · Allen Martin

Quoted 6 lines · York Sun

Quoted 5 lines · Scott Wood

Quoted 4 lines · York Sun

Quoted 3 lines · Scott Wood

Quoted 2 lines · York Sun

On 01/23/2013 01:41 PM, York Sun wrote:
I should put RFC in the subject as I am not able to compile

all ARCH

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 1 line

myself.

So how do you see this patch becoming non-RFC? I think most

people

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

don't have every single toolchain. You should at least get a

toolchain

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

for a couple major architectures such as ARM. Usually RFC is

for when

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

you know the patch has issues, and don't want it applied yet

even if

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 2 lines

nobody else finds fault with it.

I know this version has problem. I am hoping more people get

involved

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

and test what they can. I tried the arm toolchain you pointed

to me. I

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 1 line

couldn't run MAKEALL for arm.

Even before your patch, using USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC? How many

boards failed?

Quoted 2 lines

Quoted 2 lines

Quoted 2 lines

Quoted 1 line

I don't know. Wolfgang brought it. Allen kindly offered help to

verify

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 2 lines

on tegra which uses USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC.

Built and tested on tegra, no problems. I'm still seeing a lot of references to TRUE/FALSE even after this patch though:

$ git grep -e FALSE -e TRUE | awk 'BEGIN {FS = ":"} {print $1}' |  

sort | uniq

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 1 line

Thanks, Allen. A long way to go.

I thought I have replaced all #define, enum, typedef. I have left alone
those FALSE, False, false but add define like this

(quoted diff) +5 -0

+#include <stdbool.h>
+#define TRUE true
+#define FALSE false
+#define True true
+#define False false

Quoted 1 line

Isn't that enough?

It's enough to make it build, but it would be better to fix the users.

Isn't that enough?

drivers/net/npe/include/IxOsalTypes.h +0 -4

index a190a70..0168902 100644
@@ -107,18 +107,10 @@ typedef volatile INT32 VINT32;
  */
 #define IX_OSAL_BILLION (1000000000)
 
-#ifndef TRUE
-#define TRUE       1L
-#endif
-
 #if TRUE != 1

Quoted 17 lines · York Sun

drivers/net/npe/include/IxOsalTypes.h +0 -4

index a190a70..0168902 100644
@@ -107,18 +107,10 @@ typedef volatile INT32 VINT32;
  */
 #define IX_OSAL_BILLION (1000000000)
 
-#ifndef TRUE
-#define TRUE       1L
-#endif
-
 #if TRUE != 1
 #error TRUE is not defined to 1
 #endif
 

drivers/net/npe/include/IxOsalTypes.h typedef volatile INT32 VINT32; · line 116

Quoted 7 lines

drivers/net/npe/include/IxOsalTypes.h +0 -4

-#ifndef FALSE
-#define FALSE      0L
-#endif
-
 #if FALSE != 0
 #error FALSE is not defined to 0
 #endif

I imagine at least one of these #error statements will kick in now. All of the users of non-standard capitalizations must be fixed (I only see the definitions affected by this patch), and tests like these should just be dropped.