Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:52:21 -0500 (EST) From: "Sean C. Farley" <scf@FreeBSD.org> To: Matthew D Fleming <mdf@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r228878 - head/include Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.02.1112301142380.4588@thor.farley.org> In-Reply-To: <CAMBSHm8ZXNQ0CJXFFHAO5DaeTLJOZy73hBH=FoLjNUvn7%2BPqKQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201112252015.pBPKFfZ1073959@svn.freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.02.1112291617110.4588@thor.farley.org> <CAMBSHm8ZXNQ0CJXFFHAO5DaeTLJOZy73hBH=FoLjNUvn7%2BPqKQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --56599777-835880625-1325263941=:4588 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Thu, 29 Dec 2011, mdf@FreeBSD.org wrote: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Sean C. Farley <scf@freebsd.org> wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011, Ed Schouten wrote: >> >>> Author: ed >>> Date: Sun Dec 25 20:15:41 2011 >>> New Revision: 228878 >>> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/228878 >>> >>> Log: >>> Remove unneeded guard. >>> >>> There is no reason why <stdbool.h> needs an include guard. It is already >>> protected by __bool_true_false_are_defined. >>> >>> Modified: >>> head/include/stdbool.h >>> >>> Modified: head/include/stdbool.h >>> >>> ============================================================================== >>> --- head/include/stdbool.h Sun Dec 25 18:15:31 2011 (r228877) >>> +++ head/include/stdbool.h Sun Dec 25 20:15:41 2011 (r228878) >>> @@ -26,9 +26,6 @@ >>> * $FreeBSD$ >>> */ >>> >>> -#ifndef _STDBOOL_H_ >>> -#define _STDBOOL_H_ >>> - >>> #ifndef __bool_true_false_are_defined >>> #define __bool_true_false_are_defined 1 >>> >>> @@ -44,5 +41,3 @@ typedef int _Bool; >>> >>> #endif /* !__cplusplus */ >>> #endif /* __bool_true_false_are_defined */ >>> - >>> -#endif /* !_STDBOOL_H_ */ >> >> >> I just thought of this while reviewing the change: should >> __bool_true_false_are_defined be set only if __cplusplus is not set? >> It should be set for C99, but I wonder if it should be set for C++. > > My quick googling didn't show anything at all about the C++ standard > and stdbool.h or __bool_true_false_are_defined. It was probably > originally set because bool, true, and false are all C++ keywords so > certain code that wanted to ifdef on them didn't also need to check > __cplusplus. I did not find anything definitive either. >> Also, is there a style requirement that the guard for a header file >> be based off of the name of the file? I did not see anything obvious >> for this within style(9), but I am curious. > > I think it's just common use to make sure different headers use a > different include guard, so they only protect their contents, not any > other file's. The C standard only mentions the symbols bool, true, > false, and __bool_true_false_are_defined in regards to stdbool.h. Thank you. I asked since I have only really noticed filename-based guards in the tree although not all are this way (i.e., bsdxml.h uses Expat_INCLUDED). Sean -- scf@FreeBSD.org --56599777-835880625-1325263941=:4588--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.02.1112301142380.4588>