Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2004/01/11/02:34:32
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
> >
> > the file uses _Bool to define bool, which does not exist.
>
> No, it says
>
> #define bool _Bool
>
> which, I think is perfectly okay. What doesn't exist here? _Bool?
> It's built into GCC, AFAIK.
Not for K&R/C89/C90/C95. _Bool does not exist for these. The
declaration "_Bool boolthing;" should result in an undefined
error. If the above #define has occurred, that error will result
from the innocuous "bool boolthing;", and attempts to redefine
bool with "#define bool int" will also result in confusing error
messages.
The more I think about it the more I think Esa Peuhas error
message from #including <stdbool.h> under non-standard C or C
standard < 1990 is a good idea.
We may be approaching this from different viewpoints. Mine is that
code should adhere to ISO standards, and that special efforts are
needed to deviate from that. I consider GNU standards to be such
a deviation, and so run gcc with -ansi -pedantic by default.
--
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 -