This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: altivec: fix macros
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:15:21PM +0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
>
> > I know Altivec is already grossly in the user's namespace, but is it
> > really necessary to #define bool? Could you at least get away with
>
> Ahh if I could only meet the person who came up with altivec
> specs... Bool, unfortunately, is required by the altivec specs.
>
> > including <stdbool.h>?
>
> <stdbool.h> is not guaranteed to be in every system is it? (??) What
> if we're compiling for an embedded system with no GNU stdbool.h?
>
> Besides bool in this case is defined to unsigned, not plain int, as
> stbool.h defines it as.
Some systems do not have <stdbool.h> - I believe a few of the BSDs. At
least one of them added it recently when its lack was pointed out.
However, that's a vendor problem; GCC, not the C library, normally
provides <stdbool.h>.
You've introduced a conflict with a standard C99 (at least) header;
that's going to cause no end of pain. For instance, <ncurses.h> has
started using <stdbool.h>.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer