X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f Message-ID: <3FFF2420.7090305@phekda.gotadsl.co.uk> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 21:58:56 +0000 From: Richard Dawe User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031031 X-Accept-Language: en, de, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: stdbool.h and complex.h References: <3FFCF1F4 DOT B86AC9DA AT yahoo DOT com> <3FFDEB2F DOT F9560613 AT yahoo DOT com> <9003-Fri09Jan2004105245+0200-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3FFE97BE DOT 4CA94BA3 AT yahoo DOT com> In-Reply-To: <3FFE97BE.4CA94BA3@yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com 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