Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: bool: symbol name collision

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
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 17:04:38
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-bugs
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 HendersonDate: 2010-05-09 17:11:53
Subject: Re: reference to undefined macro _MSC_VER
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2010-05-09 17:01:03
Subject: Re: bool: symbol name collision

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group