assembly

>>106720842
You use punch cards.

>>106720842
>white
Latinos are not white

Just use a regular int if you're writing in C89, otherwise use bool. Don't use unsigned without a specific reason.

>>106720842
It depends.

>>106720842
Trying too hard, Prajesh.

Yea, just use 4 bytes for a flag.

File: 1758373800279140.jpg (42 KB, 350x490)

42 KB JPG

>>106720842

enum { OFF, ON } toggle;

is actually correct

>>106721104
uh compiler will figure it out

char toggle = 0;

>>106720842
Do you have 2^64 different states to toggle between? Even if you do, that's only divine when God does it. When you do it, it's niggerlicious.

>>106720842
Depends (use bool)
bool is just a typedef to an unsigned short anyway. Look up bitfields though and see if that's more applicable.
>>106721132
This is based though if it's literally for an on/off switch.

>>106720842
unsigned short toggle: 1;

>>106721104
Unaligned access is slow.
So is access on anything other than a 64-bit boundary.

Use int if you want it fast.
Use bool (which is a char, I think) if you have a million, use bit fields if you have billions of them.

>>106721407
>bool is just a typedef to an unsigned short anyway.
Apparently that hasn't been the case in a while.
> https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/ginclude/stdbool.h

#define bool    _Bool

>>106720842

class Toggle {
public:
    bool getState() const noexcept;
    void setState(bool value) const noexcept;
    void flip() const noexcept;
private:
    bool state = false;
};

>>106721292
>>106721407
The key is the difference in semantics between 2^1 states and truth values, switch on truth for a state is mistyped

>>106721504
>>106721407
From the manpage for stdbool.h

       The <stdbool.h> header shall define the following macros:

       bool    Expands to _Bool.

       true    Expands to the integer constant 1.

       false   Expands to the integer constant 0.

       __bool_true_false_are_defined
               Expands to the integer constant 1.

       An application may undefine and then possibly redefine the macros bool, true, and false.

>>106721553
>An application may undefine and then possibly redefine the macros bool, true, and false.
They're keywords now
https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/keyword.html

>>106721527
a man of culture

>>106721527
>>106721605
class in to a keyword in c

>>106720842
"bool" is more idiomatic, but you should not use bool on a public API.

>>106721617
in English, Rajeesh.

>>106720842
if you cant functional program you are not white

>>106720842
bool is gay
>doesn't serve a true purpose
>only takes you further from the ground truth of what actually happens
>possibly adds extra stuff to make sure it actually only stores 0 or 1
bool was never needed, just like all C++ heresies

>>106721030
>Just use a regular int if you're writing in C89, otherwise use bool. Don't use unsigned without a specific reason.
this is a retarded boomer rule of thumb that makes absolutely no sense. Unsigned is the default state of an integer, signed is only if you need negative numbers.

typedef unsigned char BOOL;
#define TRUE 1
#define FALSE 0

>>106721494
>Unaligned access is slow.
Retarded boomer take again. Unaligned access is not slow on standard ARM or x86 processors unless you are dealing with SIMD. Furthermore, a single byte can never be "unaligned".