From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-52793-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 10425 invoked by alias); 12 Sep 2014 17:52:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 10408 invoked by uid 89); 12 Sep 2014 17:52:34 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: topped-with-meat.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com>
To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com>
Cc: Kalle Olavi Niemitalo <kon@iki.fi>,
    Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
    libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] __builtin_expect cleanup for iconv{,data}/*.c
In-Reply-To: Carlos O'Donell's message of  Thursday, 11 September 2014 21:45:28 -0400 <54125038.1040109@redhat.com>
References: <540E06B0.50406@redhat.com>
	<540F501B.2080808@redhat.com>
	<87ha0g4adb.fsf@Niukka.kon.iki.fi>
	<541001AC.50107@redhat.com>
	<87bnqn4b25.fsf@Niukka.kon.iki.fi>
	<20140910180713.D39B72C39CB@topped-with-meat.com>
	<54125038.1040109@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20140912175231.301EB2C3981@topped-with-meat.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:52:00 -0000
X-CMAE-Score: 0
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=SvUDtp+0 c=1 sm=1 tr=0
		a=WkljmVdYkabdwxfqvArNOQ==:117 a=14OXPxybAAAA:8 a=huui3MpQL3UA:10
		a=BDn8O6tT3sYA:10 a=Z6MIti7PxpgA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=hOe2yjtxAAAA:8
		a=CCpqsmhAAAAA:8 a=xKkibcxmk47OGAx8YtQA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10
		a=66zSKFQpzMcA:10
X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00290.txt.bz2

> On 09/10/2014 02:07 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > The preferred style in glibc has always been to eschew implicit Boolean
> > coercions, except for the return value of strcmp/memcmp and the like (where
> > the most common idiomatic uses treat the value as a Boolean even though
> > nonzero values have further meaning).
> > 
> 
> Wikified.
> 
> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Style_and_Conventions#Boolean_Coercions

I forgot to mention the other exception: if (foo & BIT) or if (!(foo & BIT))
is fine, no need for if ((foo & BIT) != 0) or if ((foo & BIT) == 0).