Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Yeah, I know those #if's are there, but whether they actually do
>> anything useful is highly questionable. There is no reason to assume
>> that a compiler's built-in version of bool will be bit-compatible with
>> ours. And changing the width of bool is guaranteed to Not Work.
> Supporting C++ in the server would be a big task, but supporting C99,
> it seems to me, would only require we rename our "bool" "true" and
> "false" defines. The only other C99 keyword or typedef we use is
> "inline" for which I don't understand the issues yet.
Huh? We build just fine on C99 compilers, AFAIK. Or are you saying
that we should try to adopt <stdbool.h>'s definition of bool? The
problem there is, again, that we don't know what width that will be.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Bryan Henderson||Date: 2010-05-09 17:11:53|
|Subject: Re: reference to undefined macro _MSC_VER|
|Previous:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2010-05-09 17:01:03|
|Subject: Re: bool: symbol name collision|