Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Um, no, that does not follow. The unanswered question here is why, >> when we *have not* included stdbool.h and *have* typedef'd bool as >> just plain "char", we would get C99 bool behavior.
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d2106c2d-0f46-4cf9-af27-54f81ef6e...@postgrespro.ru > seems to explain what happens pretty clearly. We #include something > which #includes something which #includes something which #includes > <stdbool.h>. It's not that surprising, is it? Well, the thing that is scaring me here is allowing a platform-specific definition of "bool" to be adopted. If, for example, the compiler writer decided that that should be int width rather than char width, all hell would break loose. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
