Heinrich Mislik <Heinrich.Mislik <at> univie.ac.at> writes: > > # cc bool.c -E > #line 3 "bool.c" > static pbool(_Bool b)
As a followup: Obviously, your compiler provides at least some support for _Bool. But it must have failed at least one of the C99 tests for whether its <stdbool.h> is fully compliant. It would be interesting the see the relevant portion of your config.log which explains why gnulib substituted its C89-style replacement instead of your (broken) vendor <stdbool.h>. You may want to then report that bug to the AIX vendor, so that future releases of the compiler won't attempt to use the gnulib <stdbool.h> replacement. And based on the notes in stdbool.in.h, this may be relevant: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2005-10/msg00086.html And after more thought, maybe it IS worth a change to gnulib's stdbool, to use 'int' rather than 'signed char' as the replacement, when <stdbool.h> is broken, if only so that implicit conversion to bool does not also cause truncation and thus your observed silent change from true to false. But while it would help in this case, it might break other cases (for example, there is existing gnulib code that relies on 'int a; bool b; int c = a + b;' giving valid results [c is either a or a+1]). -- Eric Blake
