[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gnulib-tests/test-stdbool.c vs gcc2.95/OpenBSD
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: gnulib-tests/test-stdbool.c vs gcc2.95/OpenBSD |
Date: |
Fri, 2 Jul 2010 02:51:27 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.9 |
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> The relevant part of OpenBSD's stdbool.h is this:
> ------->
> /* `_Bool' type must promote to `int' or `unsigned int'. */
> typedef enum {
> false = 0,
> true = 1
> } _Bool;
>
> /* And those constants must also be available as macros. */
> #define false false
> #define true true
> <-------
> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/include/stdbool.h?rev=1.4
Thanks for this info. I'm updating the documentation:
2010-07-01 Bruno Haible <address@hidden>
stdbool: Update doc.
* doc/posix-headers/stdbool.texi: Mention OpenBSD bug.
Info from Christian Weisgerber <address@hidden>.
*** doc/posix-headers/stdbool.texi.orig Fri Jul 2 02:47:27 2010
--- doc/posix-headers/stdbool.texi Fri Jul 2 01:43:34 2010
***************
*** 12,17 ****
--- 12,20 ----
AIX 5.1, HP-UX 11, IRIX 6.5, OSF/1 5.1.
@item
Some compilers have bugs relating to @samp{bool}.
+ @item
+ This header file defines @code{true} incorrectly on some platforms:
+ OpenBSD 4.7 with gcc 2.95.
@end itemize
Portability problems not fixed by Gnulib: