Re: PATCH: More stdbool tweaking

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 02:27:08PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> 
> > In any case, your patch would not finesse the problem.  False is
> > defined to 'false', an enum value, in <stdbool.h>.  While the value
> > false evalutates to 0, that would not fix the problem, since it is not
> > the same.
> 
> In gcc 2.95.3, you're right.  Blast.  The situation is indeed
> impossible.  There is no possible approach which will not break the
> gdb build.
> 
> I definitely agree that bfd.h should not include stdbool.h, and you
> should check in that change now to avoid the current broken snapshots.

Done.  Unless Andrew objects vehemently to how I fixed them, I'll check
in the GDB fixes in an hour or two.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer