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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
