On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 08:01 +0800, rong deng wrote: > 2012/8/22 Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi>: > > Hi Deng, > > > > On Sat, 2012-07-07 at 22:49 +0800, Deng Zhengrong wrote: > >> As discussed, this might not handle the microsoft compilers well. But let me > >> post this series of patches and think out a better way to handle it. Or... we > >> don't change it at all. > > > > The patches didn't reach the list. (I thought they were stuck in the > > moderation queue, but that's not the case.) > > Hi Tanu, > > Thanks for reminding, I can resend it later, but how's others take on > this change? IIRC, someone is objecting this idea... David said: "I don't think there is any reason to not do s/pa_bool_t/bool/g. Probably the reason for this might be historical, as some compilers may have supported some C99 features but not all of them (Microsoft compilers come to mind)." I don't know if MSVC supports stdbool.h or not, but AFAIK you can compile PulseAudio for Windows also with GCC, so you don't have to put up with MSVC's silly limitations. -- Tanu
