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: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, "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" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:12:30 -0700
Subject: Re: make, make bootstrap, bool & gcc 2.95

--On Friday, September 20, 2002 09:37:58 AM -0700 Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote:

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.

You have to be careful about the names you use in system.h; if _Bool is
typedef'd to something else on some system, you lose.

We can avoid that by naming the type gcc_bool.

--
Mark Mitchell                mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC            http://www.codesourcery.com

References:
- Re: make, make bootstrap, bool & gcc 2.95
  - From: Richard Henderson

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