On 2016-02-11 13:06:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > But I'm unconvinced that we need to make our .c files prepared for > stdbool.h to be #included in them.
The fixes, besides two stylistic edits around !! use, are all in headers. The issue is that we return things meant to be used in a boolean context, that's not just 0/1 but some random set bit. Looking over the (outdated) patch attached to http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20150812161140.GD25424%40awork2.anarazel.de it's not completely outlandish that one wants to use one of these functions, but also something that uses stdbool.h. > By that argument, any random > symbol in any system header in any platform on the planet is a hazard > to us. Don't think that's really the same. C99's booleans are part of the standard, and have surprising behaviour that you can't get on the C level (they always contain 1/0 after assignment). That makes for more likely and more subtle bugs. And anyway, these macros are a potential issue even without stdbool.h style booleans. If you compare them using equality, you can get into trouble... Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
