Re: [RFA] fix for utils.c bool problem

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

> Is that a current or a released debian system?  A released system I'd 
>> probably agreeable to.  A current system I'm less so.
> 
> 
> Current.  But for Debian that's a somewhat meaningless distinction;
> probably a quarter or more of the Debian users run current.  The
> package in question will be in the next release, hopefully in a few
> months.


Assuming the changes are in :-(  Can you please at least create bug 
reports (one for utils and one for TUI I guess) to track the problems. 
Can you please also add a FIXME: drow/2002-02-03: explaining the 
rationale behind the hack (especially mention the GNU/Linux variant) and 
how it should be fixed properly.


>> > - The way I tried to fix this was by also using stdbool.h if it was
>> > available.  But <stdbool.h> conflicts with an awful lot of existing
>> > code.  This is unfortunate, and this is where the proper fix lies,
>> > IMO.
>> > - The way I settled on fixing this, and committed, was to use
>> > <stdbool.h> if something included before bfd.h had already brought
>> > it in.  This appears to work in all cases.
>> >
>> >I strongly want to avoid leaving GDB unbuildable on this class of
>> >systems.  I don't have any particular attachment to my patch.  I would
>> >love to revert it, as soon as there is an alternative solution in
>> >place.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> See my thread on binutils about how to fix the problem.
> 
> 
> As I've said, I have no objection to fixing it that way.  But I do
> object to leaving it broken.


My problem is that this hack doesn't fix the problem.    The track 
record is that once a hack is in, everyone ignores it and goes onto 
something else - which leaves me to fix it :-(

sigh,
Andrew