On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 08/28/2012 10:58 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>> #if HAVE_STDBOOL_H
>> # include <stdbool.h>
>> #else
>> # ifndef __cplusplus
>> # if ! HAVE__BOOL
>> typedef unsigned char _Bool;
>> # endif
>> # define bool _Bool
>> # define false 0
>> # define true 1
>> # endif
>> // not really needed except to "conform with C99"
>> # define __bool_true_false_are_defined 1
>> #endif
>
> This doesn't look right, as it means that older
> C++ environments won't have _Bool as they should.
C++ (at least here) doesn't have _Bool defined until stdbool.h is
included. But if that's the intention - would an extra
#define _Bool bool
suffice?
That's for example:
#if HAVE_STDBOOL_H
# include <stdbool.h>
#else
# ifdef __cplusplus
// maybe even #if !defined(_Bool)?
# define _Bool bool
# else
# if ! HAVE__BOOL
typedef unsigned char _Bool;
# endif
# define bool _Bool
# define false 0
# define true 1
# endif
# define __bool_true_false_are_defined 1
#endif
> I think we need to fix the real problem, somehow,
> though I don't use C++ myself and am not the best
> person to advise.
What exactly is "the real problem" here?
Thank you,
Mojca
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@xxxxxxx
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
