From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1424077AbcFHJkI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 8 Jun 2016 05:40:08 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:57555 "EHLO
	merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1423798AbcFHJkB (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 8 Jun 2016 05:40:01 -0400
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 11:39:47 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] x86, asm: use bool for bitops and other assembly
 outputs
Message-ID: <20160608093947.GQ30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1465342269-492350-1-git-send-email-hpa@linux.intel.com>
 <1465342269-492350-3-git-send-email-hpa@linux.intel.com>
 <20160608074956.GO30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160608082835.GB9645@gmail.com>
 <20160608083340.GC9645@gmail.com>
 <02ee64ce-257a-ba93-1f49-6877f5e4f6db@zytor.com>
 <20160608090111.GA11390@gmail.com>
 <88387994-fbf1-83dd-d58d-343498776a11@zytor.com>
 <20160608092040.GA17389@gmail.com>
 <9ce48c59-4b9c-bd48-ce07-b230376fba0f@zytor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9ce48c59-4b9c-bd48-ce07-b230376fba0f@zytor.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 02:31:31AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/08/16 02:20, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > Yeah, absolutely. I hate 'bool' with a vengence but if 'int' generates worse code 
> > with modern compilers then I'm not going to argue for worse code. Would a 'char' 
> > return type be very weird?
> > 
> 
> Yes.  I have to admit I don't share your hatred for "bool" -- it gives
> the compiler a fairly crucial bit of information about what the possible
> values are for a certain piece of data.
> 
> Upcasting to char loses that, and may case gcc to manifest the value as
> an integer instead of retaining it in the flags.  It is, however, less
> likely to cause gcc to then try to widen the value to word size (which
> is an extra instruction on x86), but moving the value out of and back
> into the flags register is the big cost.

So I think using bool as return type or argument is fine, using it in
structures is 'insane'.