* Paul Eggert wrote on Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:19:18PM CEST: > On 08/24/2010 01:25 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > configure:3108: checking for stdbool.h that conforms to C99 > > configure:3193: cc -qlanglvl=extc89 -c -g conftest.c>&5 > > "conftest.c", line 46.16: 1506-196 (W) Initialization between types "_Bool" > > and "struct s*" is not allowed. > > "conftest.c", line 74.23: 1506-221 (S) Initializer must be a valid constant > > expression.
> The 2nd diagnostic is valid: xlc is clearly within its rights to > reject that initializer. The first one is less clear: the C standard > says that "&s" is a valid static initializer, but I suppose > one could argue that there's an implicit conversion to bool that would > clearly be invalid if one made it explicit and wrote "(bool) &s" there. Please note that the first diagnostic is a warning only. > I installed this: does it help? The patch causes stdbool.h to be accepted with either -qlanglvl=extc89 or extc99 and with or without -q64: configure:3108: checking for stdbool.h that conforms to C99 configure:3175: cc -qlanglvl=extc89 -c -g conftest.c >&5 "conftest.c", line 68.16: 1506-196 (W) Initialization between types "_Bool" and "struct s*" is not allowed. configure:3175: $? = 0 configure:3182: result: yes Thanks, Ralf
