This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: make, make bootstrap, bool & gcc 2.95

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
Cc: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot oz dot au>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:37:58 -0700
Subject: Re: make, make bootstrap, bool & gcc 2.95
References: <20020920083432.GA20886@mars.cs.mu.oz.au> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0209200942230.4244-100000@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk>

On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 09:48:06AM +0100, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> The problem would be that though 2.95 doesn't have _Bool it has a broken
> and incompatible <stdbool.h>.  I suggest removing the HAVE_STDBOOL_H test
> in system.h and not using <stdbool.h> at all: system.h defines "bool",
> "true" and "false" the same way as any C99 <stdbool.h> will.  I.e.  
> (untested and the configure test for <stdbool.h> should be removed as
> well):

This seems like a reasonable solution.


r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: make, make bootstrap, bool & gcc 2.95
  - From: Mark Mitchell

References:
- make, make bootstrap, bool & gcc 2.95
  - From: Fergus Henderson
- Re: make, make bootstrap, bool & gcc 2.95
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]