>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> Obviously I'll fix the warning, but how strict do you want to be
>> about the rest of the code?
Tom> Well, given that we're now requiring C99 compilers, you'd think
Tom> that assuming stdbool semantics would be all right. The problem on
Tom> prairiedog and locust (which seem to be the only complainants) is
Tom> that stdbool provides a _Bool type that has size 4, so c.h decides
Tom> not to use stdbool:
Yes, this was the cause of the earlier regression test failures that
were fixed by da6520be7; I realized exactly what was going on after
writing that commit message (otherwise I'd have been more explicit).
Tom> typedef char bool;
Tom> #endif
Tom> I believe that we could suppress these warnings by changing that
Tom> last to be
Tom> typedef unsigned char bool;
*squint* I _think_, going through the integer promotion rules, that that
should be safe.
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
