Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:04:03 -0500 (EST) From: "Sean C. Farley" <scf@FreeBSD.org> To: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> 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.2.02.1112301152260.4588@thor.farley.org> In-Reply-To: <20111230090622.GO1895@hoeg.nl> References: <201112252015.pBPKFfZ1073959@svn.freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.02.1112291617110.4588@thor.farley.org> <20111230090622.GO1895@hoeg.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011, Ed Schouten wrote: > Hello Sean, > > * Sean C. Farley <scf@FreeBSD.org>, 20111230 03:54: >> 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++. > > Even if the C++ standard doesn't mention it at all, I think it doesn't > mean it is forbidden to define it. It starts with __[a-z], so it is in > the reserved namespace. I am fine with it. I found many variations of stdbool.h with some wrapping __bool_true_false_are_defined within the __cplusplus check (e.g., glibc) and some that did not. glibc may have it because stdbool.h is included from cstdbool and stdbool.h in /usr/include/c++/4.2/tr1/. >> 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 am not aware of this. I am not aware of it either, hence, my question. It was just something to which I have grown accustomed. Using __bool_true_false_are_defined as the guard works. Sean -- scf@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.02.1112301152260.4588>