Re: [RFA] fix for utils.c bool problem

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 12:09:22PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >Sorry if I missed an objection.  I was a little out of it yesterday.
> >
> >The immediate problem was -not- fixed.  To start back at the beginning
> >again:
> >  - On my machine, running a current Debian system, <curses.h> includes
> >   <stdbool.h>.  We have to live with that.  There's nothing I can
> >   particularly do about it.
> 
> 
> 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
months.

> >  - 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
> >place.
> 
> 
> 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.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer