On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Tim Robbins wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 03:18:59PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > /usr/obj/vol/share/src/i386/usr/include/stdbool.h:41: warning: useless keyword o > > r type name in empty declaration > > /usr/obj/vol/share/src/i386/usr/include/stdbool.h:41: warning: empty declaration > > > I get those a lot now... please fix. > > This happens because GCC 3 doesn't define __STDC_VERSION__ unless > you specify -std=<something>,
Also because ru just removed the special gcc hacks for errors in standard headers, so the broken <stdbool.h> is now detected. gcc 3 doesn't define __STDC_VERSION__ for -std=c89 either. __STDC_VERSION__ is a c99 thing, so this seems right. - whereas 2.95 defines it to 199409L if no > -std option is given. I didn't know that. gcc 2.29 has the interesting bugs of not putting either __STDC__ or __STDC_VERSION__ in gcc -E -dM output, so they are hard to see. - I'm not quite sure how to check for this. Perhaps this > would work: > > #if __STDC_VERSION__ < 199901L && __GNUC__ < 3 > typedef int _Bool; > #endif Seems best. > GCC 3 appears to declare _Bool regardless of any -std option. Even gcc -traditional declares it. This may be a bug. _Bool is in the implementation namespace, but still causes problems (a bit like declaring __STDC__ for nonstandard compilers). We have a hack in <sys/cdefs.h> related to this. __func__ is a C99 thing, so it should be ifdefed using __STDC_VERSION__, but it is also a gcc thing, so the correct ifdef using __STDC_VERSION__ doesn't work. We handle __restrict/restrict a little differently (probably better). Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
