Re: gboolean definition and size

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Dan Nicolaescu <dann godzilla ICS UCI EDU> writes:
> Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com> writes:
> 
>   > Dan Nicolaescu <dann godzilla ICS UCI EDU> writes: 
>   > > Is there any reason for gboolean to have a different size? 
>   > 
>   > IIRC it used to be a byte, but there were dozens of bugs introduced by
>   > that, so we just gave up and made it an int.
> 
> So is it a good time now to revisit that decision? 
> Or you don't think it's appropriate? 
> 

I think we'll be to GTK 3 by the time C99 is widely deployed enough to
be interesting, most likely.

I almost always use "guint foo : 1" bitfields for booleans anyhow,
when space is an issue...

Havoc