David Seifert wrote:
attached the patch. I believe this patch in fact increases strictness
even for C code, as it relies on the proper functioning of the "bool"
macro. I have tested it with multiple C and C++ compilers on OS X and
Linux:
Thanks, and sorry about the late reply. I installed the
David Seifert wrote:
any updates on merging the patch I sent in?
Sorry, not yet. Perhaps ping again in August
On Do, 2016-06-02 at 15:01 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 06/02/2016 02:26 PM, David Seifert wrote:
> >
> > We could relax the whole thing a bit, and maybe just make a plain
> > __cplusplus check, without a version number. This keeps the C side
> > as
> > it always has been, but allows C++'s prope
On Do, 2016-06-02 at 15:01 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 06/02/2016 02:26 PM, David Seifert wrote:
> >
> > We could relax the whole thing a bit, and maybe just make a plain
> > __cplusplus check, without a version number. This keeps the C side
> > as
> > it always has been, but allows C++'s prope
On 06/02/2016 02:26 PM, David Seifert wrote:
We could relax the whole thing a bit, and maybe just make a plain
__cplusplus check, without a version number. This keeps the C side as
it always has been, but allows C++'s proper literals to kick in.
In addition, _Bool is also a major obstacle, as it
On Mi, 2016-06-01 at 11:22 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 06/01/2016 01:29 AM, David Seifert wrote:
> >
> > stdbool.m4 is supposed to merely check that
> > stdbool.h fulfills C99 requirements. Why does it then necessarily
> > check whether bool is a
> > defined _macro_?
> Because C99 (and C11) re
On 06/01/2016 01:29 AM, David Seifert wrote:
stdbool.m4 is supposed to merely check that
stdbool.h fulfills C99 requirements. Why does it then necessarily
check whether bool is a
defined _macro_?
Because C99 (and C11) require bool to be a macro.
m4/stdbool.m4 now does that check only inside
On 31 May 2016, at 18:07, Paul Eggert wrote:On 05/31/2016 12:33 AM, David Seifert wrote:configure.ac:AC_INITAC_PROG_CXXm4_include([stdbool.m4])AC_LANG_PUSH([C++])AC_CHECK_HEADER_STDBOOLThanks for the example. I installed your patch into gnulib. But I don't see how it can work without __bool_true_f
On 05/31/2016 12:33 AM, David Seifert wrote:
configure.ac:
AC_INIT
AC_PROG_CXX
m4_include([stdbool.m4])
AC_LANG_PUSH([C++])
AC_CHECK_HEADER_STDBOOL
Thanks for the example. I installed your patch into gnulib. But I don't
see how it can work without __bool_true_false_are_defined being defined,
David Seifert wrote:
AC_CHECK_HEADER_STDBOOL needs a fix, now that GCC 6 defaults to a C++11
dialect, which breaks the assumption that stdbool.h is allowed to
unconditionally define "false" as a macro.
I don't see the problem. Can you give a self-contained test case that
illustrates it?
p 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Seifert
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 22:54:32 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Amend AC_CHECK_HEADER_STDBOOL for C++11 and modern dialects
---
m4/stdbool.m4 | 39 +--
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/m4/stdbo
11 matches
Mail list logo
