Re: stdbool.h

["J. Johnston" <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Am Don, 2003-07-03 um 17.50 schrieb J. Johnston:
>
> > Shaun,
> >
> >   In the future, it would be helpful if you sent patches against /dev/null.
> > I have modified your version below to:
> >
> >   1. handle compilers that don't have _Bool
> >   2. handle cases whereby some application may already have defined true or false
> >
> > A patch is attached which I can apply if there are no additional comments.
>
>
> Hmm. I am not sure if letting newlib provide stdbool.h is correct. 
>
> I for one, am inclined  to think, providing stdbool.h to be task of the
> compiler and not of libc 
>
> FWIW: gcc already provides stdbool.h. So, given gcc's include file
> search path, having a $(includedir)/stdbool.h in addition to gcc's
> stdbool.h is pretty much useless and will probably raise conflicts
> between newlib and gcc.
>
> Ralf

Hmm, I appear to have jumped the gun on this one.  The only reason to have one
in newlib would be to support it with a non-C99 compiler and there is probably
little value in that.  I will revert the change.

-- Jeff J.