On 08/29/2012 02:07 PM, Michael Goffioul wrote:
> Thanks for that.
Your welcome. While in an unrelated meeting today it
popped into my head that the patch wasn't quite right,
as in C++ mode it defines _Bool to _Bool (via bool),
not to bool as it should. I pushed this further
patch to fix that:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 08/29/2012 10:16 AM, Michael Goffioul wrote:
> \
> > My GCC stdbool.h is quite different:
> >
> > #ifndef __cplusplus
> >
> > #define bool_Bool
> > #define true1
> > #define false 0
>
> That's essentially what gnulib is doing as o
On 08/29/2012 01:27 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
On 29-Aug-2012, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
| n Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:36 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
|> On 29-Aug-2012, Paul Eggert wrote:
|>
|> | On 08/29/2012 10:00 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:
|> |> Why define true, false, and bool to anything when usi
On 29-Aug-2012, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
| n Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:36 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
| > On 29-Aug-2012, Paul Eggert wrote:
| >
| > | On 08/29/2012 10:00 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:
| > | > Why define true, false, and bool to anything when using C++?
| > |
| > | Maybe it's for '#ifdef boo
n Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:36 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 29-Aug-2012, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> | On 08/29/2012 10:00 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> | > Why define true, false, and bool to anything when using C++?
> |
> | Maybe it's for '#ifdef bool' but to be honest I'm just doing what
> | GCC does. P
On 29-Aug-2012, Paul Eggert wrote:
| On 08/29/2012 10:00 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:
| > Why define true, false, and bool to anything when using C++?
|
| Maybe it's for '#ifdef bool' but to be honest I'm just doing what
| GCC does. Perhaps you can ask the GCC developers why they do did
| it that wa
On 08/29/2012 10:16 AM, Michael Goffioul wrote:
\
> My GCC stdbool.h is quite different:
>
> #ifndef __cplusplus
>
> #define bool_Bool
> #define true1
> #define false 0
That's essentially what gnulib is doing as of today.
It does it with one more level of indirection,
but the same beha
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 08/29/2012 10:00 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> > Why define true, false, and bool to anything when using C++?
>
> Maybe it's for '#ifdef bool' but to be honest I'm just doing what
> GCC does. Perhaps you can ask the GCC developers why they do
On 08/29/2012 10:00 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> Why define true, false, and bool to anything when using C++?
Maybe it's for '#ifdef bool' but to be honest I'm just doing what
GCC does. Perhaps you can ask the GCC developers why they do did
it that way
Anyway, I'd be surprised if Octave cares
On 29-Aug-2012, John W. Eaton wrote:
| Michael, how is stdbool.h being included in Octave C++ sources? Maybe
| that's a mistake that should be fixed.
Oh, I see it ends up being included in data.cc because we include
base64.h from gnulib there.
jwe
On 29-Aug-2012, Michael Goffioul wrote:
| On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Michael Goffioul
| wrote:
|
| Thanks, that should indeed redefining true and false...
|
|
| I meant: that should indeed avoid redefining true and false...
Why define true, false, and bool to anything when using C++
On 08/29/2012 08:44 AM, Michael Goffioul wrote:
> AFAIK "bool" is a standard C++ type, there's no need to redefine it.
The idea was that gnulib should produce a GNU-like environment
in other platforms, and on GNU platforms this:
#include
#ifdef bool
return "bool is defined";
#endif
returns "b
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Michael Goffioul <
michael.goffi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, that should indeed redefining true and false...
>
I meant: that should indeed avoid redefining true and false...
Michael.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> I'm no C++ expert but this one looks like there's a straightforward
> fix: just use C++'s bool if available. That's what GCC's stdbool.h does,
> anyway. With other compilers this may be an issue of C and C++
> disagree with how _Bool is impl
I'm no C++ expert but this one looks like there's a straightforward
fix: just use C++'s bool if available. That's what GCC's stdbool.h does,
anyway. With other compilers this may be an issue of C and C++
disagree with how _Bool is implemented but I suppose we can burn
those bridges when we come t
Hi,
When compiling octave with MSVC under Windows, I found an issue with how
stdbool.h (from gnulib) redefines true/false unconditionally, even in C++
mode. The net result is that in C++, true/false do not have the bool type
anymore, but integer. This creates miscompilation in octave code, where t
16 matches
Mail list logo
