On 30 Dec 2011, at 16:52, Sean C. Farley wrote:
>> My quick googling didn't show anything at all about the C++ standard and
>> stdbool.h or __bool_true_false_are_defined. It was probably originally set
>> because bool, true, and false are all C++ keywords so certain code that
>> wanted to ifde
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011, Ed Schouten wrote:
Hello Sean,
* Sean C. Farley , 20111230 03:54:
I just thought of this while reviewing the change: should
__bool_true_false_are_defined be set only if __cplusplus is not set?
It should be set for C99, but I wonder if it should be set for C++.
Even if t
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Sean C. Farley wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011, Ed Schouten wrote:
Author: ed
Date: Sun Dec 25 20:15:41 2011
New Revision: 228878
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/228878
Log:
Remove unneeded guard.
There i
Hello Sean,
* Sean C. Farley , 20111230 03:54:
> I just thought of this while reviewing the change: should
> __bool_true_false_are_defined be set only if __cplusplus is not set?
> It should be set for C99, but I wonder if it should be set for C++.
Even if the C++ standard doesn't mention it at a
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Sean C. Farley wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011, Ed Schouten wrote:
>
>> Author: ed
>> Date: Sun Dec 25 20:15:41 2011
>> New Revision: 228878
>> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/228878
>>
>> Log:
>> Remove unneeded guard.
>>
>> There is no reason why needs
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011, Ed Schouten wrote:
Author: ed
Date: Sun Dec 25 20:15:41 2011
New Revision: 228878
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/228878
Log:
Remove unneeded guard.
There is no reason why needs an include guard. It is already
protected by __bool_true_false_are_defined.
Mod
Author: ed
Date: Sun Dec 25 20:15:41 2011
New Revision: 228878
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/228878
Log:
Remove unneeded guard.
There is no reason why needs an include guard. It is already
protected by __bool_true_false_are_defined.
Modified:
head/include/stdbool.h
Modif
