This is the mail archive of the
gdb-prs@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
gdb/354: Remove true/false from GDB ....
- From: ac131313 at redhat dot com
- To: gdb-gnats at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 13 Feb 2002 06:22:57 -0000
- Subject: gdb/354: Remove true/false from GDB ....
- Reply-to: ac131313 at redhat dot com
>Number: 354
>Category: gdb
>Synopsis: Remove true/false from GDB ....
>Confidential: no
>Severity: serious
>Priority: medium
>Responsible: unassigned
>State: open
>Class: change-request
>Submitter-Id: net
>Arrival-Date: Tue Feb 12 22:28:01 PST 2002
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: ac131313@redhat.com
>Release: unknown-1.0
>Organization:
>Environment:
>Description:
Hello,
This is fallout from the recent <stdbool.h> problem.
"bfd.h" was providing ``true'' and ``false'' as convenience enums/macros/... They unfortunatly clash with systems that provide <stdbool.h> (a header in c99?) and even some systems that don't. The relevant code block is:
/* I'm sure this is going to break something and someone is going to
force me to change it. */
/* typedef enum boolean {false, true} boolean; */
/* Yup, SVR4 has a "typedef enum boolean" in <sys/types.h> -fnf */
/* It gets worse if the host also defines a true/false enum... -sts */
/* And even worse if your compiler has built-in boolean types... -law */
/* And even worse if your compiler provides a stdbool.h that conflicts
with these definitions... gcc 2.95 and later do. If so, it must
be included first. -drow */
#if ...
... many valiant attemts to define true and false ...
#else
/* Use enum names that will appear nowhere else. */
typedef enum bfd_boolean {bfd_fffalse, bfd_tttrue} boolean;
#endif
In short, bfd.h should never have been polluting the name space with ``true'' and ``false''.
So the proposal is for "bfd.h" to remove all the above code and instead just define:
typedef int bfd_boolean;
i.e. 0 is false, non-zero is true, just like C intended :-)
Problem is, some blocks of GDB make use of ``true'' and ``false'' and they will need to be changed. Two possabilities come to mind:
#include "gdb_stdbool.h"
which would wrap <stdbool.h>
zap ``true'' and ``false''
I've strong preferences for the latter. I think BFD serves as a very compelling example of what not to do :-)
thoughts?
I should also note that there is some urgency to this - BFD needs to be fixed quickly - preferably before 5.2 of GDB branches.
enjoy,
Andrew
--
Also remove TRUE/FALSE?
Update ARI?
>How-To-Repeat:
>Fix:
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: