From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32567 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2002 23:31:59 -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 32499 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 23:31:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 23:31:58 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782093E7A for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 18:31:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C645FE0.30201@cygnus.com> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 15:31:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20020103 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Remove true/false from GDB .... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00155.txt.bz2 Hello, 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? I should also note that there is some urgency to this - BFD needs to be fixed quickly - preferably before 5.2 of GDB branches. enjoy, Andrew