This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]

Re: gcc's <stdbool.h> is broken

To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
Subject: Re: gcc's <stdbool.h> is broken
From: "Zack Weinberg" <zackw at Stanford dot EDU>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:33:04 -0800
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <14974.61620.982937.193137@honolulu.ilog.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.32.0102051857240.12371-100000@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk> <20010205122827.U525@wolery.stanford.edu> <20010205204551.A3104@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> <20010205215237.V525@wolery.stanford.edu> <20010206074629.E3104@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> <20010206002341.X525@wolery.stanford.edu> <u9ofwgw0v9.fsf@casey.cambridge.redhat.com> <20010206100753.C525@wolery.stanford.edu> <u9g0hqx2qu.fsf@casey.cambridge.redhat.com>

On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 09:26:49AM +0000, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >>>>> "Zack" == Zack Weinberg <zackw@Stanford.EDU> writes:
> 
> >> The C++ committee has so far mostly avoided discussion of incorporating C99
> >> extensions.  Your approach makes sense to me.
> 
> > Do you think I should apply the patch, then?
> 
> Yes.

Done.

zw

References:
- Re: gcc's <stdbool.h> is broken
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: gcc's <stdbool.h> is broken
  - From: Neil Booth
- Re: gcc's <stdbool.h> is broken
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: gcc's <stdbool.h> is broken
  - From: Neil Booth
- Re: gcc's <stdbool.h> is broken
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: gcc's <stdbool.h> is broken
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: gcc's <stdbool.h> is broken
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: gcc's <stdbool.h> is broken
  - From: Jason Merrill

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