On 2017-04-05 00:58:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

I argued before that we should migrate to stdbool.h by default, because
it's only going to get more common.  We already do so in a way for c++

- Andres

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to