On Sun, 25 Dec 2011, Ed Schouten wrote:
Author: ed
Date: Sun Dec 25 20:15:41 2011
New Revision: 228878
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/228878
Log:
Remove unneeded guard.
There is no reason why <stdbool.h> needs an include guard. It is already
protected by __bool_true_false_are_defined.
Modified:
head/include/stdbool.h
Modified: head/include/stdbool.h
==============================================================================
--- head/include/stdbool.h Sun Dec 25 18:15:31 2011 (r228877)
+++ head/include/stdbool.h Sun Dec 25 20:15:41 2011 (r228878)
@@ -26,9 +26,6 @@
* $FreeBSD$
*/
-#ifndef _STDBOOL_H_
-#define _STDBOOL_H_
-
#ifndef __bool_true_false_are_defined
#define __bool_true_false_are_defined 1
@@ -44,5 +41,3 @@ typedef int _Bool;
#endif /* !__cplusplus */
#endif /* __bool_true_false_are_defined */
-
-#endif /* !_STDBOOL_H_ */
I just thought of this while reviewing the change: should
__bool_true_false_are_defined be set only if __cplusplus is not set? It
should be set for C99, but I wonder if it should be set for C++.
Also, is there a style requirement that the guard for a header file be
based off of the name of the file? I did not see anything obvious for
this within style(9), but I am curious.
Sean
--
s...@freebsd.org
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
