This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Detect _Bool in bootstrap compiler
- To: Rainer Orth <ro at TechFak dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
- Subject: Re: Detect _Bool in bootstrap compiler
- From: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot oz dot au>
- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 02:14:12 +1000
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <15051.23321.890151.90521@xayide.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
On 04-Apr-2001, Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> wrote:
> --- acconfig.h 2001/01/25 21:56:21 1.50
> +++ acconfig.h 2001/04/04 17:27:46
> @@ -23,6 +23,9 @@
> /* Define if your assembler uses the old HImode fild and fist notation. */
> #undef HAVE_GAS_FILDS_FISTS
>
> +/* Define if the `_Bool' type works. */
> +#undef HAVE__BOOL
The comment here is a bit misleading...
> +++ aclocal.m4 2001/04/04 17:27:49
> @@ -197,6 +197,18 @@ if test $gcc_cv_c_long_double = yes; the
>
> +dnl Check whether _Bool is supported.
... likewise here.
This check is checking whether there's a built-in _Bool.
The check will (and should) fail on systems which define _Bool in <stdbool.h>.
But on such systems it would be reasonable to say that "_Bool is
supported" and that "the `_Bool' type works".
So I suggest s/works/is built-in/
and s/supported/is built-in/.
> +AC_DEFUN(gcc_AC_C__BOOL,
> +[AC_CACHE_CHECK(for _Bool, gcc_cv_c__bool,
Likewise here "checking for _Bool" is a little misleading.
I suggest s/for _Bool/for built-in _Bool/.
(Or perhaps "built in" or "builtin" rather than "built-in";
I'm not sure of the correct spelling.)
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
| of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.