bug-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnulib] Rewrite stdbool_.h during build?


From: Bruno Haible
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnulib] Rewrite stdbool_.h during build?
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:57:08 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.5

Derek Robert Price wrote:
> Is there a good reason that the stdbool module uses sed to rewrite the
> @HAVE__BOOL@ tag into a 0 or 1 when creating stdbool.h using a
> $(HAVE__BOOL) variable subbed into the Makefile via m4/stdbool.m4
> rather than just AC_DEFINEing HAVE__BOOL in the usual idiom?

The reason is that I plan to install stdbool.h alongside with some libraries
whose declares functions have 'bool' as argument or return type. I haven't
done it so far (gettext-po.h has some functions returning 'int' where they
actually should return 'bool'), but someday I'll do it.

Also it obviates the need for
     #include "config.h"
in sources that only include standard header files: <stdio.h>, <stdbool.h>, ...

> M$VC++, as one might expect of any compiler, not just an M$ tool,
> breaks when it sees:
>
> #if address@hidden@
> . . .

Why would you feed the unpreprocessed file into the C compiler?

> Windows doesn't have any standard file search/replace tool like sed,
> so it would be much easier if I could just copy the file stdbool_.h
> file to stdbool.h on that platform to avoid creating new tool
> dependencies in the CVS build.

gettext distributes all Windows specific infrastructure in a directory
called windows/, all OS/2 specific infrastructure in a directory os2/,
etc. Part of this infrastructure is an stdbool.h file. The makefile
just has to add a -I..\windows to the command line, and everything is
fine without any preprocessing or file copying. You can do the same.

> Would a patch to switch over to #ifdef HAVE__BOOL be accceptable?

No, I'm not inclined to reduce the general reliability and ease-of-use
of our <stdbool.h> substitute for the sake of minimizing the effort
to port to a particular non-POSIX environment. - What would autoconf
and automake look like if the requirement was that the generated
configure files come in .bat syntax and that the Makefiles are also
acceptable to 'nmake'?

Bruno





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]