This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Minor work-around for native HPPA compiler bug
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > There's a case for doing the opposite - ignoring <stdbool.h> and just
> > defining bool, true, false (using _Bool if available, or else char) - to
> > avoid the ABI problem people have had in the past with bootstrapping with
> > 2.95.x (bool has different sizes in stage1 (from the enum in 2.95's
> > <stdbool.h>) and later stages, causing problems if changes in development
> > and recompilation mean files built with different compilers get linked
> > together). At least the test could be made to reject 2.95's <stdbool.h>.
>
> Hmm, good point, would you mind revising the patch?
Which direction did you want to go in - a configure test that rejects
2.95's <stdbool.h> (or maybe only allows a working C99 <stdbool.h>, by
testing e.g. that (bool)2 == 1), or ignoring <stdbool.h> altogether (as in
the old untested patch <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-09/msg00797.html>)?
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm@polyomino.org.uk