This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PATCH, Re: gprof failed to compile
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>
- Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>, Tom Rix <trix at redhat dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 12:13:16 +1030
- Subject: Re: PATCH, Re: gprof failed to compile
- References: <20020131004034.A11597@lucon.org> <20020131102905.GS16187@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20020131125325.GV16187@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <3C597E69.4BD7BF24@redhat.com> <20020131114151.A3947@nevyn.them.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20020131115451.A13913@nevyn.them.org> <email@example.com>
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:49:10PM -0800, Doug Evans wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > The difficulty is that bfd.h can not use anything based on
> > autoconfiguration. Think of that what you may.
> > What's wrong with handling all cases of bool in bfd.h, since we've
> > historically handled most of it there?
> bfd.h shouldn't be polluting the namespace like this.
Agreed. I fixed the problem of gprof needing a definition of "bool"
by changing all uses of "bool" to "boolean" in gprof. The libncurses
problem is a different kettle of fish, and I don't think we should
be prohibited from including "stdbool.h" just because this clashes
with a typedef of "bool" in libncurses.
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre