This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Workaround more _Bool problems on HP-UX
- From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "John David Anglin" <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>
- Cc: roger at eyesopen dot com (Roger Sayle), gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:53:26 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Workaround more _Bool problems on HP-UX
- References: <200401231918.i0NJI13A004676@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>
"John David Anglin" <dave@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> writes:
>> Clearly, there are two very different HP compilers in the wild, with
>> different functionality and bugs. One has a builtin _Bool and not
>> <stdbool.h>, the other has no _Bool but provides <stdbool.h> instead.
>
> <stdbool.h> is provided separately from the compilers. My compiler is
> definitely too old to support _Bool.
For the moment, how about we unconditionally have
/* Many system stdbool.h and _Bool types are buggy - use unsigned char. */
#define bool unsigned char
#define true 1
#define false 0
in system.h? And then we can think about whether it's worthwhile
trying to probe for a real, non-buggy _Bool. I confess I am a little
worried about people coming to depend on the semantics of _Bool when
we don't always have them.
zw