From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11270 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2002 23:55:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11142 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 23:55:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 23:55:39 -0000 Received: from cse.cygnus.com (cse.cygnus.com [205.180.230.236]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA24961; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:55:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kev@localhost) by cse.cygnus.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g18Nsfq11964; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 16:54:41 -0700 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 15:55:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1020208235440.ZM11963@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Remove true/false from GDB ...." (Feb 8, 6:31pm) References: <3C645FE0.30201@cygnus.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97 Caldera) To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Remove true/false from GDB .... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00157.txt.bz2 On Feb 8, 6:31pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > This is fallout from the recent problem. > > "bfd.h" was providing ``true'' and ``false'' as convenience > enums/macros/... They unfortunatly clash with systems that provide > (a header in c99?) and even some systems that don't. The > relevant code block is: > > /* I'm sure this is going to break something and someone is going to > force me to change it. */ > /* typedef enum boolean {false, true} boolean; */ > /* Yup, SVR4 has a "typedef enum boolean" in -fnf */ > /* It gets worse if the host also defines a true/false enum... -sts */ > /* And even worse if your compiler has built-in boolean types... -law */ > /* And even worse if your compiler provides a stdbool.h that conflicts > with these definitions... gcc 2.95 and later do. If so, it must > be included first. -drow */ > #if ... > ... many valiant attemts to define true and false ... > #else > /* Use enum names that will appear nowhere else. */ > typedef enum bfd_boolean {bfd_fffalse, bfd_tttrue} boolean; > #endif > > In short, bfd.h should never have been polluting the name space with > ``true'' and ``false''. > > So the proposal is for "bfd.h" to remove all the above code and instead > just define: > > typedef int bfd_boolean; > > i.e. 0 is false, non-zero is true, just like C intended :-) > > Problem is, some blocks of GDB make use of ``true'' and ``false'' and > they will need to be changed. Two possabilities come to mind: > > #include "gdb_stdbool.h" > which would wrap > > zap ``true'' and ``false'' > > I've strong preferences for the latter. I think BFD serves as a very > compelling example of what not to do :-) > > thoughts? If GDB made widespread use of ``true'' and ``false'', I'd suggest converting these occurences to ``gdb_true'' and ``gdb_false''. I've just looked though and GDB has surprisingly few uses of ``true'' and ``false''. That being the case, I like Andrew's latter suggestion of just zapping them. Here's the results of my search after removing the occurrences of lines containing true and false in comments: ./memattr.c[34]: false, /* hwbreak */ ./memattr.c[35]: false, /* cache */ ./memattr.c[36]: false /* verify */ ./memattr.c[185]: attrib.hwbreak = true; ./memattr.c[187]: attrib.hwbreak = false; ./memattr.c[191]: attrib.cache = true; ./memattr.c[193]: attrib.cache = false; ./memattr.c[197]: attrib.verify = true; ./memattr.c[199]: attrib.verify = false; ./corelow.c[172]: return (true); ./corelow.c[175]: return (false); ./irix5-nat.c[437]: abfd->cacheable = true; ./osfsolib.c[256]: abfd->cacheable = true; ./solib.c[240]: abfd->cacheable = true; ./symfile.c[1097]: sym_bfd->cacheable = true; Kevin