Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2004/01/10/12:53:05
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> > Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:42:07 -0500
> > From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
> >
> > Maybe I've got my head up. This was the line that gave me the
> > impression that !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__) would let things in. It
> > uses ||.
> >
> > >>>#if (defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L) \
> > >>> || !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__)
>
> That's true: if __STRICT_ANSI__ is not defined, the C9x-style boolean
> features are exposed. But I don't see what is the problem with that:
> if the program is not compiled with strict ANSI compliance turned on,
> we are at liberty to use extensions.
Exactly. The extensions are bool, true, and false. But the file
uses _Bool to define bool, which does not exist. The user is not
allowed to define _Bool for himself, because it is in the wrong
name space.
You may have noticed that the substitute file I use for my own
purposes defines bool as int, thus avoiding the problem.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com) (cbfalconer AT worldnet DOT att DOT net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
- Raw text -