From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16344 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2002 06:03:53 -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 15997 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2002 06:03:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2002 06:03:45 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16ZQbp-0003zl-00; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 01:03:37 -0500 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 22:03:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Kevin Buettner Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Remove true/false from GDB .... Message-ID: <20020209010337.A15324@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Kevin Buettner , Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <3C645FE0.30201@cygnus.com> <1020208235440.ZM11963@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1020208235440.ZM11963@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00161.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 04:54:41PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > 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; So would anyone object if we simply removed all of those? -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer