Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Definition of boolean type
Message-ID: <9753@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 1 Mar 89 05:45:18 GMT
References: <10@dbase.UUCP> <1989Feb10.092449.20875@sq.uucp> <6849@pogo.GPID.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 10

In article <6849@pogo.GPID.TEK.COM> rickc@pogo.GPID.TEK.COM (Rick Clements) writes:
>With the compiler I am currently using, I use "if (x == FALSE)" or
>"if (x != FALSE).  ...  The compiler I am using generates LESS code
>this way.  ("if (x)" causes it to go to the work of converting it to
>a 1 or 0 with some less than efficient code.

That's pretty strange -- "if(x)" means no more and no less than
"if x is nonzero", which nearly all instruction sets support directly.
It's easy to imagine a dumb compiler that produces MORE code for
"if(x!=0)" but not one that produces LESS code.