On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 08/28/2012 11:47 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: >> What exactly is "the real problem" here? > > The real problem is that we're testing whether > stdbool.h works in C, and using that test to configure > both C and C++. We should use a C++-specific test to test > whether stdbool.h works in C++. OK, I see. There might be exotic situations when users could decide to use completely different C and C++ compilers. But even before that change is made, if developers decide to make it (it requires some overhaul), I would find it very very useful to take care of a much more common scenario: - HAVE_STDBOOL_H is false for C compiler (no C99-compliant stdbool.h) - _Bool is defined in C (HAVE__BOOL is true) - _Bool is not defined in C++ A serious question: is there any C++ compiler out there which defines _Bool by default (without including stdbool.h) or where "#define _Bool bool" would fail to work? Mojca _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
