| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Bryan Henderson <bryanh(at)giraffe-data(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: bool: symbol name collision |
| Date: | 2010-05-09 17:01:03 |
| Message-ID: | z2w407d949e1005091001q44a6dfebocbf9e4028c4c2fbb@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
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.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-09 17:04:38 | Re: bool: symbol name collision |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-09 16:58:06 | Re: bool: symbol name collision |