On 04/04/2017 09:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

makes sense

> 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 have not been able to generate warnings or errors around "true" and


Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to