Re: [RFA] Replace strdup with xstrdup in tic30-dis.c

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 03:29:36PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> 
>> Alan Modra <amodra@bigpond.net.au> writes:
>> 
> 
>> > Hmm, I'm inclined to just use "int" directly rather than introduce a
>> > "bfd_boolean".  Unless I hear objections, that's what I'll do one of
>> > these days..
> 
>> 
>> I tend to think that bfd_boolean is better because it makes the code
>> slightly more self-documenting.  An int variable might hold any value,
>> but a bfd_boolean variable is clearly intended to hold only a true or
>> false value.

In C, there is zero and non-zero.  There is no true or false.

What ever the function's type, its the avoidance of:

	if (bfd_foo_p() == TRUE)

that is important.

> Yes, I agree that it's more self-documenting, but even better is to
> use function names that are obviously predicates.  My reason for
> disliking the typedef is that it hides the real type in the same
> way that macros hide things.  When it comes to debugging code you
> inevitably hit a situation where you need to ignore all the
> documentation and look at all macros and typedefs to see what is
> really going on.
> 
> 
>> But I'm hardly fanatical about it.
> 
> 
> Nor am I.  :)  So far, it's two people for "bfd_boolean", one for
> "int".

Andrew