On 2017-04-05 00:58:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: > >> Any objections? > > > I'm guessing Tom's going to have a strong feeling about whether 0001a > > is the right way to address the stdbool issue, > > I will? [ looks ... ] Yup, you're right. > > I doubt that works at all, TBH. What I'd expect to happen with a > typical compiler is a complaint about redefinition of typedef bool, > because c.h already declared it and here this fragment is doing > so again. It'd make sense to me to do > > + #ifdef bool > + #undef bool > + #endif > > to get rid of the macro definition of bool that stdbool.h is > supposed to provide. But there should be no reason to declare > our typedef a second time.
> Another issue is whether you won't get compiler complaints about > redefinition of the "true" and "false" macros. But those would > likely only be warnings, not flat-out errors. I argued before that we should migrate to stdbool.h by default, because it's only going to get more common. We already do so in a way for c++ compilers... - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
