This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: K&R patch for binutils bfd directory
- From: "John David Anglin" <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>
- To: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca (John David Anglin)
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 22:24:21 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: K&R patch for binutils bfd directory
> Wasn't a BFD things-to-do-today thwack ``true'' and ``false''? Someone is definitly ment to be removing them from bfd.h.
I have no objection. However, the function declaration needs to be consistent
with the return value when it is an enum to avoid warnings. It doesn't make
a lot of sense to cast a bunch of zeros and ones to boolean.
Gcc uses TRUE and FALSE, and the type _Bool. They are based on stdbool.h
when available. However, the comment says they must be defined after all
inclusion of system headers.
Dave
--
J. David Anglin dave.anglin@nrc.ca
National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6605)