This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] fix for utils.c bool problem
> 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
Assuming the changes are in :-( Can you please at least create bug
reports (one for utils and one for TUI I guess) to track the problems.
Can you please also add a FIXME: drow/2002-02-03: explaining the
rationale behind the hack (especially mention the GNU/Linux variant) and
how it should be fixed properly.
>> > - 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.
My problem is that this hack doesn't fix the problem. The track
record is that once a hack is in, everyone ignores it and goes onto
something else - which leaves me to fix it :-(