Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2004/01/09/17:06:31
Hello.
CBFalconer wrote:
[snip]
> Injecting _Bool is no problem, using it (under C90) is. So the
> only problem that can arise is not having the underlying C99
> abilities. Therefore the proposed stdbool.h is fine, with the
> solitary exception of the "|| STRICT_ANSI" term.
I'm having trouble understanding your point(s).
* C89 doesn't define _Bool.
* Does C90 define _Bool? What is C90?
* C99 does define _Bool.
The C99 sections are protected by:
(Standard C version defines >= C99) && !(strict ANSI)
If we're using -ansi/-std=c89/-std=gnu89, __STRICT_ANSI__ will be
defined but the C version defines won't. So the C99 section will *not*
be included.
If we're using -std=c99/-std=gnu99, then __STRICT_ANSI__ and the C
version defines are defined. So the C99 section will be included.
If no -ansi/-std switches are used, then __STRICT_ANSI__ is not defined
and the C99 section will be included. Note that this is independent of
whatever mode the compiler operates in by default.
So I don't see what the problem is.
Thanks, bye, Rich =]
--
Richard Dawe [ http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~phekda/richdawe/ ]
"You can't evaluate a man by logic alone."
-- McCoy, "I, Mudd", Star Trek
- Raw text -