Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: >> Any objections?
> I'm guessing Tom's going to have a strong feeling about whether 0001a > is the right way to address the stdbool issue, I will? [ looks ... ] Yup, you're right. I doubt that works at all, TBH. What I'd expect to happen with a typical compiler is a complaint about redefinition of typedef bool, because c.h already declared it and here this fragment is doing so again. It'd make sense to me to do + #ifdef bool + #undef bool + #endif to get rid of the macro definition of bool that stdbool.h is supposed to provide. But there should be no reason to declare our typedef a second time. Another issue is whether you won't get compiler complaints about redefinition of the "true" and "false" macros. But those would likely only be warnings, not flat-out errors. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers