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 "false". Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
Description: OpenPGP digital signature