This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] fix for utils.c bool problem
On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 12:09:22PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Sorry if I missed an objection. I was a little out of it yesterday.
> >The immediate problem was -not- fixed. To start back at the beginning
> > - On my machine, running a current Debian system, <curses.h> includes
> > <stdbool.h>. We have to live with that. There's nothing I can
> > particularly do about it.
> Is that a current or a released debian system? A released system I'd
> probably agreeable to. A current system I'm less so.
Current. But for Debian that's a somewhat meaningless distinction;
probably a quarter or more of the Debian users run current. The
package in question will be in the next release, hopefully in a few
> > - The way I tried to fix this was by also using stdbool.h if it was
> > available. But <stdbool.h> conflicts with an awful lot of existing
> > code. This is unfortunate, and this is where the proper fix lies,
> > IMO.
> > - The way I settled on fixing this, and committed, was to use
> > <stdbool.h> if something included before bfd.h had already brought
> > it in. This appears to work in all cases.
> >I strongly want to avoid leaving GDB unbuildable on this class of
> >systems. I don't have any particular attachment to my patch. I would
> >love to revert it, as soon as there is an alternative solution in
> See my thread on binutils about how to fix the problem.
As I've said, I have no objection to fixing it that way. But I do
object to leaving it broken.
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer