On 04/04/2017 09:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I doubt that works at all, TBH. What I'd expect to happen with a
> typical compiler is a complaint about redefinition of typedef bool,
> because c.h already declared it and here this fragment is doing
> so again. It'd make sense to me to do
>
> + #ifdef bool
> + #undef bool
> + #endif
>
> to get rid of the macro definition of bool that stdbool.h is
> supposed to provide. But there should be no reason to declare
> our typedef a second time.
makes sense
> Another issue is whether you won't get compiler complaints about
> redefinition of the "true" and "false" macros. But those would
> likely only be warnings, not flat-out errors.
I have not been able to generate warnings or errors around "true" and
"false".
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
